Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Bill to be read the Third time.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

EXETER CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Emigration

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the figures of emigration from Scotland in 1970; and what were the comparable statistics for each of the last 10 years.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): As the answer consists of a table of figures, I shall, with permission, publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the net figures went down in the last few years of the Labour Government? As the Government have not a clue about how to solve the unemployment problem, and as the problem will get worse when they butcher Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, will the right hon.

Gentleman arrange for the shipyards in the Clyde to provide more ships to ship out the emigrants?

Mr. Campbell: Without accepting the implications of the hon. Gentleman's remark about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, I point out that the highest figure of emigration from Scotland since 1946 was in 1966, when it was 47,000, and that the next highest figure was in 1967, when it was 45,000. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that emigration can be kept to a minimum.

Mr. Ross: Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman must have some information about the figures and the trend, will he say whether the continuing and progressive reduction year by year—from the 47,000 figure in 1966 until it was reduced to 21,000 last year—has continued?

Mr. Campbell: It is too early yet to identify the trend since the 1970 figure.

Following are the figures:


Year to June
Net loss by migration from Scotland


1960
28,500


1961
34,600


1962
29,500


1963
34,000


1964
40,600


1965
43,000


1966
47,000


1967
45,000


1968
33,000


1969
25,000


1970
21,000

Oral Answers to Questions — Grant-aided Schools

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete his review of the long-term grant arrangements for grant-aided schools; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): The grant-aided schools are at present preparing at my right hon. Friend's request a collective view on the long-term arrangements and they hope to let him have this by about the end of July. We shall want to consider their views and I cannot yet say when the review will be completed.

Mr. Brewis: Is it the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that schools like George Watson's and Heriot's, which have contributed to the excellence of Scottish education, should


be able to continue to do so and should not be slowly strangled for doctrinaire reasons, which was the object of the last Secretary of State?

Mr. Taylor: The Government are committed to continuing to support grant-aided schools.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Will the hon. Gentleman give the cost to the taxpayer of subsidising grant-aided schools in Scotland?

Mr. Taylor: That is a separate question. I should be glad to give the hon. Member the precise information if he would table a Question. As I have said, the long-term arrangements for grant-aided schools are under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sunday Opening

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the interests of tourists and visitors on wet Sundays, he will introduce legislation to allow public houses, cinemas, museums, and other places of leisure to open on Sundays.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): For cinemas, museums and places of leisure generally no such legislation is required in Scotland since there is no general law prohibiting Sunday opening. The question of Sunday opening of public houses is within the terms of reference of the Clayson Committee on the licensing laws, and I propose to await its report.

Mr. Ashton: As hundreds of men are unemployed in Scotland and hundreds of tourists are willing to spend money on Sundays, could not the two factors be combined? Is it not a sham and hypocrisy that visitors can sit in a hotel and drink beer and watch television on a Sunday and yet they are prevented from going into pubs and cinemas? Would the hon. Gentleman look into this matter? If he had spent a wet Sunday night in Inverness, as I did a month ago, I am sure that he would take action to change the situation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Before the hon. Gentleman makes wild statements about employment in Scotland, he should look at the history of legislation in Scotland on matters such as this. The compara-

tive absence of restrictive legislation in Scotland allows the practice in Scotland to develop in accordance with public opinion. I do not think that the Government should intervene in this matter.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the thanks of most people in Scotland for what he said at the end of his reply? They agree with the observance of Sunday. If any change were desirable, it should take into account the wishes of the people and not just those of someone who might have spent a wet Sunday night in Inverness.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take into account the wishes of the people in Scotland. It is the people in Scotland who matter.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that he has the support of many Scottish Members in what he said, but may I remind the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that one of the main reasons why so many tourists go to the Highlands of Scotland is that the Highlands are so totally different from anything south of the Border?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says, and, without having to introduce a whole lot of new legislation, it remains true that Scotland has for the tourist more to offer than any other part of the United Kingdom, or even overseas.

Oral Answers to Questions — Guard Dogs

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now completed the joint considerations between himself and the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the existing law in relation to the use of guard dogs.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir. There have been only a few minor incidents in Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department intends to announce our joint conclusions tomorrow.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer leaves us in some doubt? Would he not agree that there are far too many amateurs, even in Scotland, doing the job of training guard


dogs to guard premises, and would he not agree that a guard dog roaming unattended about premises which it is supposed to be guarding cannot distinguish between some malicious intruder and, perhaps, a young child?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman need not be in doubt much longer. A statement will be made tomorrow. He will appreciate that this is a matter which is the concern of the Home Department as well as of our own, and, indeed, the incident which gave rise to current concern occurred in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Scotland."] I accept that there is public concern and worry about this, but we must keep a perspective, and our inquiries in Scotland have revealed so far three minor incidents. However, I assure the House that we do have concern about it, and the hon. Gentleman will hear more about it tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — School Meals

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the survey of school meals taken on 27th May and indicate what reduction has taken place since charges were raised.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The returns so far received from education authorities indicate that the number of pupils taking the school meal expressed as a proportion of the number present in school fell from two-fifths in January to one-third on 27th May. However, while the total number taking school meals was lower, the number receiving free meals increased and constituted 41·7 per cent. of the total number taking meals.

Mr. Hughes: But is the Minister not prepared to accept that the very serious reduction in the number of children taking meals, coupled with the Government's policy on school milk, means that the Government are gambling with the health of children in Scotland? In view of the figures which he has just given, will he not be man enough to admit the error of his ways and reverse this policy?

Mr. Taylor: Certainly not. I do not accept anything of what the hon. Member said. The fact is that there is always some decrease in the uptake in the summer term, and past experience suggests that a fall in uptake which immedi-

ately follows any increase in charges is largely recovered during the following months. I would explain to the House that my figures are for Scotland less four authorities, because we are still awaiting returns from them; but I want to give the House as much information as possible. On that basis of comparing January and May, and less four authorities, the number receiving free meals increased from 83,502 to 103,084. I think that that shows the benefits of our policy.

Mr. MacArthur: It is sometimes difficult to relate two-fifths and one-third, but am I right in my calculation that this means that one child fewer out of 15 is taking meals in school and that we should relate that to an increase of 25 per cent. in the number of children who are receiving free meals?

Mr. Taylor: Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his mastery of the decimal system as well as of fractions. He is absolutely right. I emphasise that there has been this quite dramatic increase in the number receiving free meals, so that we are getting help to where it is most needed.

Mr. Buchan: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that these are the most devastating figures that he has given, that the total number receiving school meals has dropped, but that the number of free meals has risen—and that that is a terrible indictment of the employment policy of the Tory Party? Has he worked out how much more it will cost the Treasury as a result of the events last week with U.C.S., for example, and would it not be cheaper as well as more humane to drop this whole ridiculous policy?

Mr. Taylor: No. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party increased school meal charges in the past, and that experience has been that when charges go up, there is a temporary reduction in uptake which, however, is largely recovered during the following months. I think that the figures for free meals which I have given show that many parents who, perhaps, in the past were reluctant to apply have now done so. This shows that the help we give goes where it is most needed.

Mr. Ross: It is a measure of poverty in Scotland, that is all.

Oral Answers to Questions — Telephones for the Disabled

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the way in which local authorities are implementing the appropriate provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act with regard to the provision of telephones for the disabled; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Taylor: As far as I am aware local authorities are giving careful consideration to any applications they receive from disabled persons for the provision of a telephone. My right hon. Friend intends, however, to refer to this subject in a circular to local authorities about services for the disabled.

Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland gave an assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) that he would personally ensure that local authorities would implement this part of the Act? Can he tell me whether this has been done?

Mr. Taylor: It is quite clear that local authorities have the statutory power and it is for them to consider individual cases. However, as I say, my right hon. Friend intends to refer to this subject in a circular which will shortly be issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — Economic Surveys (Cost)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the costs of the economic surveys prepared in Scotland in the period from 1960 to date.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The costs of the five major regional economic and physical planning studies commissioned by the Scottish Office since 1960 were:



£


Lothians
56,000


Grangemouth / Falkirk
58,000


Central Borders
59,000


North-East Scotland
12,000


Tayside
35,000

Mr. Douglas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he inform the House whether he has read all those surveys? Of course, there is one survey omitted, which has had a devastating effect on the Scottish economy in the last few weeks. I refer to the sur-

vey of the shipbuilding industry compiled by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). All those other surveys which the right hon. Gentle man has mentioned—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech. He must ask a question.

Mr. Douglas: I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will place in the Library of the House the survey of the shipbuilding industry prepared by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury so that we can all see the method by which the Government have butchered the industry on the Clyde.

Mr. Campbell: I do not myself know anything of a survey of the kind described. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I presumed that the hon. Gentleman intended to raise the question of the survey which his own county of Clackmannan initiated, in which I am particularly interested.

Mr. MacArthur: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is one survey to which he has not referred, and which is, perhaps, best forgotten? Does he recall the January, 1966, pre-election survey published by the Labour Party and which was wrong about employment, wrong about population, and wrong about everything else? Is is out of kindness that he has not mentioned it, or charity, perhaps, to the former Secretary of State? If so, is my right hon. Friend aware that those feelings of sympathy are ill deserved?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I presume that the survey to which he referred is the January, 1966, White Paper which was linked to the National Plan, which also proved to be entirely wrong.

Mr. Ross: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he knew nothing about and did not receive a copy of the report drawn up on the future of U.C.S. by his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)? A direct yes or no.

Mr. Campbell: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to something I have seen referred to in the newspapers, the answer is that I did not know of such a document.

Oral Answers to Questions — Fishing Limits (Scottish Coast)

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the areas off the Scottish coast which lie between the six and 12-mile fishing limits which are fished by current members of the European Economic Community and by other countries.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: A map is available in the Library showing in detail the areas in which fishing vessels of individual countries have fishing rights between the six-mile and 12-mile limits.

Mr. Baker: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that no dilution will take place in the six- to 12-mile band by countries other than those already designated; and will he say whether the designation orders already in force will obtain should Britain enter the Common Market?

Mr. Campbell: As my hon. Friend will see, if he is not already familiar with the map, in terms of the European Fisheries Convention, 1964, habitual fishing rights established in the 10 years prior to December, 1962 were granted to the fishing vessels of contracting parties. In addition, certain fishing rights were granted to Norwegian vessels off the Scottish coast. As these fishing rights are separate for individual countries, they are, of course, discriminatory and, therefore, this is a subject which has been under discussion in the negotiations in which my right hon. and learned Friend has been engaged in Luxembourg.

Mr. Maclellan: Will the Secretary of State say what is the value, expressed as a proportion of the total catch, of the landings in Scotland from the six- to 12-mile area?

Mr. Campbell: No firm figures are available, as no one can be certain on a national scale exactly where fish landed have been caught. However, I can say that almost all the herring and shell fish landed in Scotland come from within the six-mile limit, together with between one-quarter and one-third of all white fish landings, including deep-sea catches.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend taking steps to make the map to which he referred definitive, so that we

know exactly where we are in law? What attention are the Government giving to the need for a greatly increased supply of fishery protection vessels, in view of the negotiations with the Common Market?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend already has a Question down on the second point, so I will wait until we reach it. On his first point, the map is widely distributed and known among fishermen and fisheries officers in Scotland, and I was glad, on my recent visit to the Orkneys and Shetlands, to find it in the appropriate offices. It is well known to the fishermen concerned but not to many others who are concerned about the interests of fishermen. There is no question of the 12-mile limit being abandoned. Whatever is negotiated, countries which are not members of the Common Market will still continue to be held outwith the 12-mile limit.

Oral Answers to Questions — House Improvement Grants

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of house improvement grants approved to date in 1971; and what was the number of approvals for the corresponding period of 1970.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): In the first quarter of 1971 grants were approved for 5,733 houses, compared with 5,179 in the first quarter of 1970.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those figures, which are pretty satisfactory. Will he press on with these schemes and make sure that householders know that improvement grants are available, because there is a lot of ignorance about them?

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. I think he will agree with me that yesterday's announcement by my right hon. Friend of increased grants, which will enable a private owner to have as much as £1,800 or three-quarters of the cost, whichever is the less, will be a great stimulus to this most important part of our housing policy.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that we agree that the programme needs stimulating, in


view of the disappointing figures? Will he give us a breakdown of the grants as they apply to owner-occupied, private tenancy and local authority houses?

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a detailed Question, I shall be happy to provide that information. If he thinks that these figures are disappointing, he may like to know that, since the publicity campaign which I launched two months ago, we have had no fewer than 2,800 inquiries from people wishing to take advantage of these grants. In addition, the greatly increased money which is available as from today should be a powerful stimulus.

Mr. David Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the rate of take-up of improvement grants by local authorities?

Mr. Younger: The fairest answer I can give is that the take-up is rather patchy. Many local authorities are doing very well, but a number are unnecessarily reluctant about taking advantage of the grants.

Oral Answers to Questions — Rossend Castle, Burntisland

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received against fixing the date for the public inquiry into the future of Rossend Castle, Burntisland, in the annual holidays; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: The only representation my right hon. Friend received came from the Town Council. It is now proposed to hold the inquiry on Tuesday, 21st September.

Mr. Gourlay: I thank the hon. Gentleman for postponing the date, but it appears that some of the representations which have been sent have gone missing either in the post or in his Department.

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman can tell me of some other representations which he thinks I should have received but obviously have not received, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — Housing Finance

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what agreement has been reached with the local authorities on his proposals to replace housing subsidies at present in

payment by new subsidies towards the cost of rent rebates; and if he will make a statement;

(2) whether he is now in a position to estimate the range in the standard rent before rebate, which local authorities would require to charge on their three-and four-apartment houses in order to bring housing revenue and expenditure into balance after the proposed replacement of housing subsidies at present in payment; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent meetings with the local authority associations in Scotland concerning his proposals dealing with housing finance.

Mr. Younger: I must ask hon. Members to await our detailed proposals on housing finance, which I hope to announce before the Recess.

Mr. Lawson: Is it the Government's intention to welsh on obligations already entered into for houses that have been built?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knowns, I cannot anticipate the details of the final policy which will emerge after consultations with local authorities are complete. As he also knows, we have said all along that the object is to renegotiate housing subsidies so that, in future, they are paid to those people and those authorities who have the greatest need.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that, while in the last series of discussions the local authorities were unanimous in welcoming these proposals, in these consultations many local authorities are bitterly opposed to them? Is it not, therefore, all the more important that a fresh dialogue should be entertained on the subject of a national rent rebate scheme, which we would welcome in Scotland, because of rising prices? It is essential to get the proper base line for the application of the rent rebate scheme if we are not to cause undue hardship.

Mr. Younger: These matters will be discussed publicly after the announcement is made before the recess and will also be discussed in this House before the proposal goes through. The object of


the discussion with local authorities is to work out the technical details of a major change in policy. Although there will no doubt be points on which we and the local authorities agree and points on which we disagree, we have had splendid co-operation from them throughout our discussions, which have been very fruitful.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Since Question No. 31 in my name is also being taken, is it permissible for me to ask a second supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wishes.

Mr. Lawson: Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us, without beating about the bush, whether the discussions in which he is now engaged with local authorities are about something to be agreed with or to be imposed on local authorities? How much agreement, as distinct from imposition, will there be?

Mr. Younger: The one thing about which I think the local authorities would be unanimous is that they have been very glad to be fully consulted on all the details of this policy. They would certainly have greatly resented it if they had not been fully consulted, and I am glad to say that they have been fully consulted.

Oral Answers to Questions — North-east of Scotland (Gaskin Report)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now review the position of the Gaskin Report in planning future developments in the north-east of Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Development Authority and the Joint Planning Advisory Committee are keeping the position of the region under continuous review in liaison with the appropriate Government Departments. The Report continues to be a valuable guide.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that this Report, on the figures he announced today, was the cheapest of the exercises undertaken by the previous Government? Is he also aware that the balance of projected development in the area is somewhat unfairly in the direction of the constituency of my hon. and

gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell whose political skill in these matters is becoming legendary, but that it ignores the essentially industrial towns of Fraser-burg and Peterhead, which are thereby placed at a comparative disadvantage? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that investment in the infrastructure of the region will not be unfairly weighted for that reason?

Mr. Campbell: I am sure that Professor Gaskin and his helpers were not concerned with the special pleading of any particular area. The Report was commissioned by, and submitted to, the previous Government before my hon. and gallant Friend won his seat. The Gaskin Report identified two growth zones, but made it clear that it was not excluding growth elsewhere. As the whole of the North-East has development area status, there is no special financial advantage for the two growth zones.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State not aware that the Gaskin Report laid great stress on the kind of incentives and help which the Government could give to bring industry into the area? Is he aware that this Development Authority, in conjunction with all interested bodies, is appalled at the change in Government policy on incentives? Will he look at this proposal again?

Mr. Campbell: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I have had meetings with these two bodies and there was no question of their objecting to the changes which have been agreed. It was widely represented that these changes would be more on the lines recommended by the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — Salmon

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that, as a result of the recent meeting of the International Commission for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries, the future of the salmon which are native to Scottish rivers has been adequately protected from both the commercial and sporting viewpoint; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Commission has proposed that the restrictions in 1971


on sea fishing for salmon in the Commission's area should Continue in 1972 and 1973, subject to review during that period if substantial changes occur. I am satisfied that this was the best agreement that could be reached in the circumstances.

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend believe that the salmon stocks in the Atlantic can stand catches of about 2,000 metric tons and more by Danish fishermen off Greenland? Would he not agree that by 1973 the Scottish salmon is very likely to be extinct?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not share my hon. and gallant Friend's fears for the future. We have made absolutely clear that we favour greater restrictions, but there is no point in supporting proposals which clearly would be unacceptable to those countries which do the fishing. That could result in no obligation on the part of those countries to apply restrictions.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the Minister agree that widespread concern has been expressed in many quarters that the fishing for salmon off Greenland may have a disastrous effect on salmon stocks? Is he in a position to say anything authoritative on this matter since, though one continually reads reports of the dangers, one is not sure of the weight to give to those reports.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This gives us great cause for concern, but what we can achieve can be done only by international negotiation. This is what we have tried to do in the Commission. What is clear is that the other countries concerned in this matter are already becoming much more aware of conservation problems, and I am hopeful that over the years we shall get even more co-operation than we have had in the past.

Mr. Maclennan: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether Denmark is prepared to go along with these restrictions?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is one of the difficulties. We must try to make sure that we achieve the maximum that will be observed in existing circumstances. We cannot force other countries, which are free agents, to adopt a solution which we would like and which we think best for our own stocks.

Oral Answers to Questions — Public Authority Works (Contractors)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek powers to ensure that when contractors are doing work for one public authority in an area and there is other work of a similar nature to be undertaken by another authority, in the interests of economy and speed some co-ordination is arranged.

Mr. Younger: I agree that such coordination is desirable, and I hope that the authorities will co-operate voluntarily for the purpose.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister go rather further? It is bad enough to have one statutory authority tearing up a street in a town just after another has put it back. It is far worse in an island when machinery is moved away while another authority needs it for other work on the island. There is a great need for water on Eday and the scheme is not due until next year. In the meantime machinery may be sent to that island which may be useful. Will he see whether he can arrange co-ordination?

Mr. Younger: I agree with the desirability of doing what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The difficulty is that these contracts are let by different authorities and sometimes these contracts run for differing lengths of time. This is a matter which can be solved only by authorities getting together to discuss the possibilities. I hope that they will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — Hill Lamb Subsidy

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek to introduce a hill lamb subsidy.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I consider that the hill ewe subsidy is a more suitable method of encouraging the maintenance of foundation stocks, particularly on the poorer hill land.

Mr. Steel: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that his reply is disappointing in view of the encouraging remarks which were made in the Scottish Grand Committee on Tuesday of last week? Is he also aware that many people in the hill areas of Scotland believe that in order to compete with forestry interests there


must be more finance, and that a hill lamb subsidy would be one method of putting in finance related to productivity, which the Government want?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman would look at what I said in the Scottish Grand Committee a week ago he will find that I said that we had looked at this matter and that it presented severe administrative difficulties. If a subsidy such as the hon. Gentleman suggests were confined to lambs, it would put at a disadvantage those farmers on poorer land who faced adverse conditions and who had a poorer lamb crop than others on better land. This point has a bearing on the matter.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Could my hon. friend say what is the hill lamb subsidy in the Common Market?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that, although lambs and sheep are not a commodity covered under the common agricultural policy at present, the French Government pay a subsidy for the retention of ewe lambs for breeding purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — Corsbie Hall School, Fife

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the future of Corsbie Hall School in Fife.

Mr. Edward Taylor: When Her Majesty's Inspectors visited this school at the beginning of June they found that substantial progress had been made. Most of the physical improvements suggested earlier in the year have now been completed. There are still some weaknesses in staffing however. My right hon. Friend proposes therefore to withhold final registration for the present. He will have the school inspected again in three months' time.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is the most disgraceful reply I have ever heard in the House? Does he not realise that the reply which I received from the Secretary of State for Education in regard to English mentally retarded children at this school was that they were being withdrawn at her direction because of adverse reports by inspectors in the Scottish Education Department? Is not the implication of the hon.

Gentleman's reply that he is satisfied, as is his Department, to allow mentally retarded Scottish children to stay in a school which has been declared inadequate by the English Minister responsible for these matters?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is putting words into the mouths of Ministers. His remarks were uncalled for. My answer shows the care that we are taking on these matters. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend will be reviewing the position in the light of the latest reports by my inspectors. We are concerned to see that the arrangements for the education and care of pupils at present in this school are satisfactory, but our responsibilities in the matter are different from those in England. In Scotland it is the duty of the education authority concerned to satisfy itself that a school is suitable for the needs of the child. I have no power to approve or disapprove of the placing of children in a school.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the unsatisfactory, and indeed shameful, nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — Domestic Rating (Quinquennial Review)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the disparities that have taken place in domestic rating as between one area and another as a result of the quinquennial review.

Mr. Younger: The valuations determined by the assessors can be appealed against and the final level of valuations will not be known until all such appeals are disposed of.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that he has some responsibility in this matter since the method of quinquennial review is based on an Act of Parliament? Is he unaware of the fact that for a considerable time in the columns of the Press and various local government publications there have been widespread protests by domestic ratepayers against the high levels of rateable value and the valuations being proposed at present? Is there not a strong case for inquiry since he has given the


impression that the people of Scotland would always be consulted by the Government?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman must know that the system of rating and quinquennial review depends on the opinions of the assessment officer in each area as to what is the correct rateable value of a particular house. This is subject to the normal process of appeal and at this stage, when many of these matters are under appeal, I cannot comment on any differences there may be between one area and another. The hon. Member's point is valid, but it is not a matter on which I have power to intervene in regard to any Statute which lays down the rules.

Oral Answers to Questions — Public Works Programme

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what official organisations in Scotland have written to him urging the adoption of a public works programme by the Government as a contribution to easing the unemployment situation.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Scottish Trades Union Congress, and the town councils of Maybole and of Stevenston.

Mr. Sillars: Knowing the concern about unemployment in Scotland, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends, in advance of the redundancies that we can expect at U.C.S., to launch a public works programme in the area likely to be most affected? If not, why not?

Mr. Campbell: The S.T.U.C. has already suggested that work should be done on school and hospital building. Yesterday, I announced an additional hospital programme to which the Government will be contributing £5 million, and I also announced a special two-year scheme for house improvement in development and intermediate areas. The possibilities of extra schemes are under consideration.

Mr. Ross: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the difficult situation that we face? Tomorrow we shall get the new figures. They ought to have fallen. However, if they are still over 100,000, we are in for a very black winter. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that what is required is a

massive programme with a date limit which will concentrate the provision of jobs over next winter and so give the right hon. Gentleman time to sort out further programmes? Will he look at the position again? He will recall that the last Administration launched such a programme in 1967 which cost us more than he refused to U.C.S. only the other day.

Mr. Campbell: I am aware of the contribution that public works programmes can make, but they cannot alone solve the difficult situation facing us. The Scottish Trades Union Congress was pressing us to establish a special development area for West Central Scotland. We did that in February. I should also add that we have recently given an extra £4½ million for primary school improvement during 1972–3. All these moves will help, but a lot more needs to be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — Unemployment

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what maximum level of unemployment in Scotland would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government before a change in their policy is considered; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I cannot accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's Question. Our first priority is to restrain inflation which has been crippling investment and so reducing employment possibilities. As that task is achieved we intend to deploy our regional development policies to the full to stimulate growth.

Mr. Hunter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what is being witnessed in Glasgow today, together with the intention of the T.U.C. to organise marches for unemployed workers, is reminiscent of the 1930s? Does not he realise that there is a great economic depression in the country, and will not he do something positive to protect the interests of Scotland rather than damaging them still further?

Mr. Campbell: I am aware that most of those who appear to be taking part in marches today are not unemployed but are giving up their jobs for some hours and thereby possibly causing dislocation and loss of production in Scotland. I deplore the irresponsible attitude


of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in what he is doing to encourage it.

Dr. Miller: Are we to take it that the maximum level of unemployment acceptable to the Government has been reached and that we shall see very soon a reversal of their policy, with more jobs being provided for the people of Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: I deplore the present rate of unemployment. However, it has been caused by the weakening of the economy due to persistent cost inflation. Our policy is designed to put this right.

Mr. Buchan: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the cool, levelheaded anger in Scotland at the present time. Will he confirm, for example, that, facing this position of unemployment in Scotland and other development areas, the Government have decided to send 10,000 jobs to Southend, a non-development area? Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of that decision? Did he oppose it in the Cabinet? If not, why not?

Mr. Campbell: I am concentrating on trying to bring to Scotland industry of the kind which will help us to expand. The special development area established with the full support of the S.T.U.C. is an important contribution to that. But we must get an expansion of the economy as a whole in order to have the mobile industry which can be attracted.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Health Service

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on his proposals for the reorganisation of the Health Service in Scotland.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I am not yet ready to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) on 5th November last, but I will do so as soon as possible.—[Vol. 805, c. 453-4.]

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the information that we have been able to get from him on request, for which we thank him, and apart from the odd Press statement, we have had no information about the reorganisation of the Health Service in

Scotland? In view of the fact that this organisation is not unconnected with the reorganisation of local government, and that the two will have to be discussed in parallel, although, naturally, one will follow the other in terms of legislation, cannot we have a statement very soon, and certainly before the recess?

Mr. Taylor: We shall reveal the proposals as soon as we can. The reason for the delay has been that wide consultations have been necessary and, in a matter of such great importance, it is essential to give organisations sufficient time to react, especially to the important, far-reaching proposals about the central organisation of a reorganised Health Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — School Building Programme, Lanarkshire

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the Lanarkshire County Council's request to carry out the school building programme for 1973–74; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Taylor: None as yet. My right hon. Friend expects fairly soon to let education authorities know their investment allocations for school building to start in 1973–74.

Mr. Hamilton: Bearing in mind what the Secretary of State has said about stimulating the economy, does the hon. Gentleman agree that this would be a sign of good faith not only to the local authorities but to the people of Scotland and would serve two purposes: first, to give the unemployed jobs building the schools; and, secondly, to give to the local authorities some confidence that the Government intend to stand by what they say?

Mr. Taylor: I accept the importance of an expanding school-building programme. We have already announced an expansion of the primary building programme. The hon. Gentleman can be sure that we shall do all that we can to get the best programme possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — Local Authorities (Boundary Changes)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish


a White Paper giving details of the boundary changes which Scottish local authorities have proposed to those specified in Command Paper No. 5483, February, 1971, with an indication of his views on these proposals.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has received about 170 suggestions relating to more than 80 proposed boundary adjustments, and he is considering all these at present. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to publish them.

Mr. Douglas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is a very disappointing reply? If he cannot publish this information in a White Paper, will he see that the views of the local authorities are put in the Library so that hon. Members may know those views, especially the excellent proposals submitted to him by the county council of Stirling?

Mr. Younger: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. However, to try to publish all this information would be a very difficult operation. Of the 170 suggestions proposing 80 changes, many are mutually contradictory. It would be very difficult to publish all of them in such a way that everyone concerned could make up his mind. I have undertaken to consider all these representations carefully and to consult some of the local authorities where further information appears to be necessary before a decision can be made.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the unanimous opposition of the Aberdeen council to the proposal that Aberdeen should no longer be a one-tier authority? If he will not consult my friends on the council, will he consult his own friends, since they are equally adamant in their opposition?

Mr. Younger: I am aware of the very strong views of local authorities in Scotland about local government reform. They do not alter the fact that we must consider the proposals for change in a careful and calm spirit. As I said, we shall consult local authorities where we think that further information will be helpful to us.

Oral Answers to Questions — Nursing Education

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of children receiving nursery

education in education authority and grant-aided establishments at the latest date in 1971 for which figures are available; and what percentage increase this represents over the figure for the corresponding date in 1970.

Mr. Edward Taylor: There were 12,539 pupils receiving nursery education in education authority and grant-aided schools at January 1971, an increase of 17·8 per cent. over the figure for January, 1970.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: While thanking my hon. Friend for those figures, may I ask him to recall that the subject of nursery education featured in our election manifesto? Is he satisfied with the progress which has been made, and will he press on with it?

Mr. Taylor: I accept that this is a very important matter. The figures that I have quoted are very encouraging and, through the urban aid programme, we hope to secure further expansion.

Oral Answers to Questions — Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when a full orthodontic service is now likely to start in Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy.

Mr. Edward Taylor: It is not yet possible to say when this service will start. Accommodation in which orthodontic treatment could be provided is available in the hospital, but the South-Eastern Regional Board has not yet found it possible to allocate money to cover the cost of adaptation and running costs taking account of other urgent projects in the region.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this is another blatant example of passing the buck? Three years ago the local board could not find the accommodation. This has now been found by the regional board, but it cannot find the money. Will the Minister show some initiative and give some of the additional income which he is receiving from increased prescription charges to provide this full orthodontic service in Kirkcaldy?

Mr. Taylor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. I know that he has been pursuing it for some time. However, it is for the


regional board to decide priorities and the allocation of available funds. The board is considering this project together with many other desirable projects in the region.

Oral Answers to Questions — Local Government Reform

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received intimation from any or several local authorities acting together that further evidence affecting his proposals for the reform of local government in Scotland is to be submitted to him; if he will receive them; and when is the last date on which he will accept and consider such representations.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has informed the conveners of the six county councils in the proposed West region, and also Fife County Council, that he will consider submissions they have told him they are preparing about these areas. Fife County Council has said that a study which it has commissioned will be completed by the end of July, and we expect to receive the conveners' submission by mid-September.

Dr. Mabon: I welcome that reply. May I take it that further submissions of substance from groups or single authorities will be allowed to be presented? At what date will the Secretary of State make clear his response to these considered submissions? We shall get into serious difficulties over the transitional arrangements if we do not have this decision.
On a further simple point, may I ask whether the Government will consider the suggestion about putting the alternative proposals in the Library? Is it not a simple thing to photostat these proposals and to put copies in the Library for hon. Members interested in all these representations?

Mr. Younger: I will certainly look into that possibility.
I entirely agree about the need to take a decision on this matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to make known his decision on these proposed boundary alterations by end of the summer.
Concerning further representations, the hon. Gentleman knows that the original date was supposed to be 30th April, but

my right hon. Friend made special arrangements to accommodate the authorities which particularly asked for extra time. I think that all who asked for extra time have now got time which is satisfactory to them.

Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the consultations or considerations which have been given are genuine and that the Government have not made up their mind on the matter?

Mr. Younger: Yes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all consultations on local government reform are genuine and detailed and that we shall take into account every possible view.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much notice he will take of the report of the consultants hired by Fife County Council at a cost to the ratepayers of £24,000?

Mr. Younger: It is not for me to criticise their hiring or the cost, but I shall certainly take careful account of any representations made by Fife County Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — Fishery Protection Vessels

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has formed of the number of fishery protection vessels he will need in the light of the United Kingdom's proposals made to the European Economic Community about fishing limits; and the most effective kind of vessels for this work.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: It would be premature to make any detailed estimate at this stage. In considering the future of my Department's protection service in the light of the Cameron Report, I shall of course take into account the situation as regards entry to the Community.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these proposals, as we have them at present in Brussels, will certainly have the effect of very much increasing the pressure from foreign shipping on our fishermen prosecuting their livelihood within whatever limit is finally arranged? Until now there has been a certain buffer, which is in danger of disappearing. Therefore, we shall definitely have to consider increased forms of fishery protection if we are to go ahead.

Mr. Campbell: We must await the report of my right hon. and learned Friend on his talks in Luxembourg. I should point out that in recent years the fishery protection vessels of the Royal Navy, in co-operation with the Scottish Office vessels, have had to police the belt between six and 12 miles because of the fishing rights which various European countries have had in that belt.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if, as appears to be the case, the six to 12-mile band has been conceded—sold out—by our negotiator in Brussels, it will more than ever be necessary to have fishery protection vessels in view of the threats of open warfare if these areas are entered by fishing trawlers from the Community?

Mr. Campbell: Whatever the result of the negotiations—I cannot prejudge what they will be—the need to police the belt from six to 12 miles will in future be as great as, if not greater than, at present. I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

Oral Answers to Questions — Upper Clyde Shipbuilders

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will pay an official visit to Glasgow and take the opportunity during this visit to tour the shipbuilding yards of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I was in Glasgow last Friday and I saw a deputation from the shipbuilding yards then. On the previous Wednesday I had seen representatives from the areas concerned with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and later in the Scottish Office. On Monday I attended the Prime Minister's meeting with the Scottish Trades Union Congress and I am attending another meeting with representatives of the area tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: That is all very interesting, but we have read most of that in the Press. What did the ship workers tell the right hon. Gentleman? Did they tell him that they were very pleased with the Government? Did they say that they thought that the Government were implementing their promises, or, like the overwhelming majority of people in this country, did they tell him that this Government ought to do something for the

poor, the under-privileged, and now the growing unemployed?

Mr. Campbell: They did not. They discussed constructively the difficult and serious situation facing us on Clydeside. They discussed what could be done by the provisional liquidator, and the present state of liquidation, and how the Government could co-operate with the provisional liquidator for a reconstruction of a healthy shipbuilding industry on Upper Clyde.

Mr. Grimond: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that there is considerable disagreement between the account of events given by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and by Mr. Hepper? Would he either see Mr. Hepper to find out whether statements about cash flow, estimates of profitability, and so on, were made, or, if not, as this must be a matter of serious concern to the Scottish Office, at least press in the Cabinet for some inquiry into the whole history of the matter, from the day when the consortium was first set up?

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman will see from my speech in HANSARD a week ago what was in the letter of 3rd May from U.C.S., and other events. I shall not, naturally, repeat all that now.

Mr. Ross: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his reply. He was invited to go to the yards. Will he go to the yards? Will he address the men and be questioned by them—he will be given a ready hearing—and try to persuade them that it was right to put Tory dogma before the jobs of thousands of men?

Mr. Campbell: I shall do, as I am doing, everything that I can to help with this situation, which is most depressing for me as Secretary of State for Scotland.
I am aware that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is even now addressing a meeting of men who would be much better employed at their work, because leaving work is causing loss of industrial production in Scotland. As recalled in a letter in the Glasgow Herald yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister who ordered the Chairman of the Firth of Clyde Dry Dock to apply for liquidation. Can hypocrisy or cynicism go any further?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Wage Settlement

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of the recent wage settlement with the Civil and Public Services Association; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): The recent settlement for clerical grades in the Administration Group added approximately £20 million per annum to the wage bill for these grades, an increase of 11½ per cent. This settlement, which is effective from 1st January, 1971, is firmly based on the evidence in the Report of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit of the rates being paid at that date for functionally comparable work by other employers in both the private and the public sectors.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it true that the Lord Privy Seal committed himself in advance to accepting the findings of the pay research unit, however inflationary those findings might be, as indeed they turned out to be? If so, how does my hon. Friend reconcile this with the reiterated statements that it is the Government's intention to stand up to inflationary wage pressures in the public sector?

Mr. Howell: My noble Friend and the Government have made clear again and again that they wish to stand by agreed procedures for pay settlements. They urgently wish that this was observed in other sectors as well.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In his original reply the Minister referred to the relevance between public and private wage and salary increases. Will he explain why the Government always condemn any increase to the lower paid? When I asked the Prime Minister yesterday to condemn the increase of £3,000 a year on £2,000 paid to Lord Shawcross and other part-time directors of Shell, who admit doing only two days work per week, he refused to do so. When will the Government condemn the highly paid as well as the poor on a few pounds a week?

Mr. Howell: That raises much broader questions which have nothing to do with the Question.

Sir G. Nabarro: What has a lot to do with and is relevant to the Question is why the Civil Service, in this instance with a £20 million increase in pay and on other occasions with increases ranging up to 65 per cent., should secure these large advances with facility whereas Members of Parliament, who have gone without since 1964, are subject to interminable procrastination and delay in dealing with their very legitimate case? When will the Government apply themselves to their own kith and kin?

Mr. Howell: As my hon. Friend knows, the Top Salaries Review Body is now hard at work and will report as soon as it can on this important matter to all of us.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of continual unsatisfactory replies, I beg to give notice that on Monday next I shall raise this whole question on the Adjournment.

Candidates for Government Posts (Conditions of Entry)

Miss Fookes: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will take steps to ease the conditions of entry for candidates entering the diplomatic service and the Department of the Environment by waiving entirely the requirement that both parents of a candidate must always be, or, if dead, always have been, British subjects.

Mr David Howell: This requirement no longer applies to any posts in the Department of the Environment.
As regards the Diplomatic Service, the requirement is not in practice an absolute one. A candidate may be admitted to the Diplomatic Service by special permission of the Secretary of State provided that one of his parents has always been a British subject, that his father is, or was at death, a British subject, and that the candidate satisfactorily fulfils the other conditions of the Diplomatic Service nationality rule.

Miss Fookes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I point out that one of my very able young constituents was so discouraged by this so-called escape clause, which my hon. Friend mentioned, that he gave up all idea of entering the Civil Service?

Mr. Howell: I do not know about the general point which my hon. Friend makes. If she has a particular case in mind, I should be delighted if she would write to me and I will certainly look into it.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that it would be better to wait until the end of Question time before raising this matter. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked permission to answer Questions Nos. 44, 45 and 46 after Question Time. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the moment the largest industrial demonstration in Scotland's history is taking place. He will be aware, also, of the anger among all sections of the community on Clydeside, the trade unions, the churches, and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member has gone far enough. The answer is "No".

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order on Questions. Would it be better to do it now, or later?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would raise the matter now.

Mr. Lewis: Like yourself, Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House long enough to know that one cannot ask the Chair questions about the principle of transferring Questions.
I apologise to you for not having given you prior notice of this, but may I draw your attention to the fact that I put down a Question to the Prime Minister, dealing with a matter for which the Prime Minister is responsible. I asked for action to be taken that could be taken only by him. I asked whether he would arrange for free postage for the electorate to enable them to write to him on the question of the Common Market. There is a lot of interest in this matter, and as the Prime Minister is anxious to get the opinion of the electorate, I thought that that would be a good way of getting their views.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member's preamble prohibits me from

allowing him to continue further on this matter. The hon. Member began by saying that this was not a matter for the Chair, and it is not.

Mr. Lewis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you must hear me until I have completed my question because, as you rightly said, what I have said so far is the preamble to my point. I agree that if the Prime Minister is asked a Question it is within his prerogative to transfer that Question to the Minister responsible for dealing with the matter at issue, but I submit that he is not entitled to switch a Question in such a way that the whole purpose of the Question is lost. That is what the Prime Minister has done, and I am now shown as having asked a Question which I have never asked. I am shown as asking the Postmaster-General whether he will receive letters. I do not want the Postmaster-General to receive letters.
The point I wish to raise is that when a Question is transferred the text of the Question may be altered, if necessary, but the Question should still ask for the information which the hon. Member is seeking. The Question should not be altered as in this case, so that it shows me asking the Postmaster-General whether he will make free postage facilities available for the electorate to write to him. The Prime Minister ought not to dodge the Question as he has done in this instance, or in relation to another Question on page 1194 of the Order Paper. The Prime Minister continually dodges and evades Questions by transferring them to Ministers who have no responsibility for the issues raised in the Questions.
Lastly, it is obvious to me that if I were to ask the Prime Minister whether he did or did not say that he would cut prices at a stroke, there would be no point in the right hon. Gentleman's transferring that Question to the Leader of the House, because we know that the Leader of the House never said that—he merely supported the Prime Minister in what he said.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I shall consider what he has said. If I can find any trace of order in it, I shall rule at an appropriate time.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you are considering the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur


Lewis), would you consider, also, whether it might be to the convenience of the House if some way could be found of enabling the hon. Gentleman to put bogus points of order to you in writing?

NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS

Mr. Michael Foot: (by Private Notice)

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): The national interest is adequately covered by the conditions governing the tender arrangements. In the event of success, the consumer will be protected by the normal market forces which apply under both methods of application.

Mr. Foot: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, first, that perhaps the best way of dealing with a matter of this kind is not by answering a Written Question late at night, at the same time as he is holding a Press conference and announcing, according to The Times report, a major change of policy, and that perhaps it might be better to make such announcements to the House of Commons, as has been done on some previous occasions in dealing with this matter?
Second, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will give an absolute assurance that these new arrangements are still governed by Section 9, I think it is, of the Continental Shelf Act, which provides that the Government shall have the power to survey the prices at which the gas is offered, or the resources are offered, to the Gas Council, and that the Government retain the powers provided in that Act, and that those powers will govern all the tenders whether made under competitive tender or under previous arrangements under these proposals?
Third, does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is somewhat invidious that he should embark upon this major change of policy, on a matter which may involve

hundreds of millions of pounds passing from the public to private pockets or possibly away from public industries, at a time when in another place his Department has been refusing to give answers on what is involved in the increase in price which the Gas Council has agreed to pay, and when the Government have refused to intervene on, or even to survey, an increase in price which has taken place in that area—as I say, perhaps involving millions and millions of pounds over the years? Does he not think that it is all the worse—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]—when the policy involves a grave discrimination against public industry, and when the policy change involves a departure from the previous policy, under which it was guaranteed that the National Coal Board and the Gas Council, publicly-owned industries, should be able to participate in the exploitation of this great national resource?

Sir J. Eden: The question of a statement is, of course, a matter for the Leader of the House—

Mr. Heffer: Come off it.

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has rather got matters out of proportion. What we are talking about in the competitive tender arrangements amounts to about 3 per cent. only of the territory on offer. It is of significance in order to give this country experience of the value of combining tendering procedure with the discretionary licensing arrangement which has always applied hitherto. All, or most, other countries have had the tendering procedure in operation for a long time. It is right that we should try, on a very limited front—which is all this is—to see whether it has relevance to this country. This is simply an experiment.
The conditions of the Continental Shelf Act still apply both to the tendering blocks and to the other blocks. As for the hon. Member's final point about the nationalised industries, what we have done is remove the discrimination in their favour put there by the last Government.

Mr. Skeet: I welcome the Minister's suggestion. Bearing in mind that experience is to be obtained in tendering, why is it not possible to put up at least 50 per cent. of the properties for tender?


Will my hon. Friend give some intimation of the type of conditions which he has attached thereto, or circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Sir J. Eden: The conditions pertaining to the blocks on offer under competitive tender are set out in the London Gazette of yesterday. The criteria applying to them are similar to the criteria which apply to the discretionary blocks; namely, those affecting the requirement that the companies shall be British-registered, that there shall be reciprocity of treatment with the country of origin of the company applying, the technical competence of the company applying and so forth. These things still apply to the tender blocks as to the other discretionary blocks.
My hon. Friend also asked why more blocks should not be put on offer. This is simply because we felt it right to have a limited experiment only, to see what the value of this was in the United Kingdom's interests. This is why it has been decided not to go further than the 3 per cent. of the total blocks on offer—15 in all.

Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that considerable quantities of oil and gas have now been found off the coast of Scotland and Northern England, and that these regions are in great need of new capital? Is he taking any steps to see that they in particular benefit from this discovery of wealth off their shores?

Sir J. Eden: If this wealth is discovered off their shores as the right hon. Gentleman says, no doubt it will be in the interests of those who discover it in the United Kingdom waters adjacent to those territories to bring it ashore at the closest possible point. It will then be a matter for the companies concerned as to what happens to it.

Sir G. Nabarro: I congratulate my hon. Friend warmly on this departure from the policy of the previous Government, all of which is exactly in accord with the policies of the Conservative Party. Would he bear in mind that there are almost limitless resources of natural gas in the North Sea, and that participation by a large number of competing bodies will probably engender a demand for great numbers of new oil rigs, all of which

are capable of being built on the Clyde? Will he bring to the attention of his appropriate colleagues the potential for building oil rigs on the Clyde, instead of the traditional vessels in the Clyde yards?

Sir J. Eden: Yes, Sir; I will do as my hon. Friend suggests. He is right to say that, in addition to the actual work of oil and gas exploration, there is the immensely important back-up industrial benefit which flows to this country from this highly successful operation.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman take note—as I hope the Leader of the House will take note—that, although he may regard this as a minor matter, we certainly do not, that we think it is improper that it should have been dealt with in this way, and that we think it should be fully debated in the House, so that we can have all the facts about the gas price and how it was done debated openly in the House and not concealed, as the Government are seeking to do. We want it all out in public instead of done under the carpet as the hon. Gentleman tried to do it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that hon. Members want to ask further supplementary questions, but I must say that my willingness to accept Private Notice Questions is inhibited by the length of time which they will take. This one has taken 10 minutes, which I think is enough, and other ways must be found of debating the matter. If it is felt that on every Private Notice Question there should be 20 minutes in which to ask questions, that would affect my judgment in allowing it.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order arising from your statement to the House, Mr. Speaker. May I underline the fact that in November, 1965, when the previous Government were making announcements on this subject, the Government at that time took the responsibility of coming to the House to make a statement. If that procedure had been followed on this occasion, it would not have been necessary for me to ask you to allow me to put a Private Notice Question. So I hope you will not take as any precedent the fact that this Private


Notice Question had to be put down. It had to be put down because the Government were trying to deprive the House of facilities which were available before.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker, I should make clear to the House the policy which I have consistently stated and which I believe to be right. It is that we have to be very careful to safeguard the business of the House in the number of statements which are allowed after Questions. This problem has been faced by all Governments. I have made clear to the House my principle, which is that I seek to limit these statements to those occasions when I believe that they are rightly and necessarily required by the House. My judgment may be wrong. I am responsible for my own judgment, and I am very ready to stand up and face criticism on it. I told my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to put the responsibility on me, because it was my decision not to have this statement—

Hon. Members: You cannot hide behind that.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am not hiding behind it: it was my decision. I find it difficult to know why I should be accused of hiding behind a decision when I am taking full responsibility for it. If I have been wrong, I can be criticised and am ready to be criticised. I was acting in what I thought to be the best interests of the House, as I still believe I was doing. I will certainly take into account the hon. Member's criticisms and I will bear them in mind in future. But very difficult decisions come to me on the question of what statements should be made and what should not. I did my best to act in the interests of the House as a whole.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for detaining the House for one moment more, but this is a matter of some importance. I fully agree that it is difficult for any Government to select the subjects on which statements should be made, but the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House that the Department had asked for a statement to be made on the subject

and that the request had been refused. Further, I cannot believe that the Leader of the House authorised the Department to make the answer given to a Question last night in the House of Commons which purported to be a statement on this matter as a whole but which treated it as a trivial matter when, at the same time, the Minister was saying—outside the House—that he was making a major change of policy. Major changes of policy on matters involving hundreds of millions of pounds should be made in the House of Commons. I believe that, on consideration, the right hon. Gentleman will accept that view.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have nothing to add to what I have said, which is that I take responsibility for the matter. I take full responsibility for this and for the consequences which follow from it. I took responsibility for the original decision. I note what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Orme: The question of gas prices and the consortium was raised in the House of Lords. No answer was given by the Government to any questions. Last night the Minister gave a Written Answer, and today he has come to the Dispatch Box, and he has not given any detailed answers about finance, profits or investments. In that case, hon. Members who want to press further questions upon him surely have a right to do so. The Government were deliberately denying us the information that we wanted.

Mr. Speaker: These all sound suitable matters to raise if some means can be found to debate the issue. I simply desired to make it clear that I was prepared to permit a certain amount of questioning but that, on the general matter of Private Notice Questions, it will affect the Chair very much if it is thought that every time one is allowed 20 minutes of the time of the House is to be devoted to it. I should be willing to allow many more Private Notice Questions if I felt that they would be dealt with expeditiously.

Mr. Eadie: You have made a pronouncement to the House, Mr. Speaker. I would point out that you are the servant of the House in this respect. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker is the servant of the House, and he will not deny it. This issue must be cleared up. In view of the exchanges to which you have listened, Mr.


Speaker, would you not now care to amend what you have said about Private Notice Questions? It is open to Government and Opposition back benchers to raise Private Notice Questions if they find that Governments tend to hide executive decisions. Back benchers must try to use the procedures of the House on occasions in order to expose clandestine decisions that Governments are attempting to make. I suggest that in the light of the exchanges which have taken place today, Mr. Speaker, you, as the protector and custodian of the rules of the House, may care to amend your statement in relation to debating Private Notice Questions.

Mr. Speaker: Of course I am the servant of the House, but I am entrusted by the House with certain discretions, one of which is to decide whether or not to allow a Private Notice Question and another is to decide how long I should permit supplementary questions to take. In this case, I allowed 10 minutes' questioning, which I think was not out of proportion. Of course I am not laying down an absolutely fixed rule, and I shall exercise my discretion from time to time. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his help.

Mr. Driberg: May I, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, ask you to keep reasonably flexible the Ruling that you have just given? Surely a Private Notice Question must be considered by the Chair on the merits or importance of the subject of the Question and not only whether it will attract a number of supplementary questions. Is not that so?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member. Of course that is a factor.

Mr. Palmer: You said that 10 minutes had been given to supplementary questions, Mr. Speaker. In fact, most of the time was taken up by statements from the two Front Benches, and it was impossible for back benchers to put questions.

Mr. Speaker: If I said that, it was not what I meant. I meant that 10 minutes had been devoted to the Question. I think that that is accurate.

INDIA AND EAST PAKISTAN

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I both had discussions on Monday, 21st June with Mr. Swaran Singh, the Indian Minister of External Affairs, during which he made clear to us the concern which his Government feel about the situation in East Pakistan and the very great burden and the danger to stability created by the massive influx of refugees into India.
Following the recent meeting of the India Aid Consortium, Her Majesty's Government are now making available a further £5 million in cash or in kind to relieve the economic burden on the Government of India of supporting the refugees. Like other members of the Consortium, we are giving this contribution over and above our normal development aid to India. In addition, a further £1 million will be made available by Her Majesty's Government to U Thant's appeal for the direct relief of refugees in India. The total amount of assistance made available by Her Majesty's Government for relief and rehabilitation in India will thus be increased to over £8 million. This is a humanitarian task having no relation to politics, in which I hope very many members of the United Nations will participate. About 23 have so far done so.
An informal meeting of members of the Pakistan Aid Consortium on 21st June considered reports from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund representatives who had been visiting East Pakistan and had held discussions with the Government in Islamabad. No commitments of new aid of any kind were called for, nor were any given, though all expressed their willingness to contribute to humanitarian relief in East Pakistan under the effective surveillance of the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains that projects already in hand in Pakistan must continue, in so far as this is possible, but that there can be no question of new British aid to Pakistan until we have firm evidence that real progress is made towards a political solution.
Conditions in East Pakistan continue to be disturbed. It is with great regret that I have to inform the House that two British subjects, Mr. P. J. Chalmers and Mr. J. Y. Boyd, both of whom were working on tea-planting estates in the Sylhet district, have been reported missing. Despite attempts by British representatives both in East Pakistan and in India, and inquiries made through the Pakistan Martial Law Administration and the Indian Government, we have been unable to obtain any definite news of them. In the circumstances there must be grave fear for their safety and I would express the sympathy of Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure of the whole House, to their relatives in this country at this anxious time.
The President of Pakistan has reiterated his Government's hope that those who have fled across the border to India will return to their homes, and has undertaken that they will have no cause to fear should they do so. Her Majesty's Government have represented to him the importance of restoring peaceful conditions in which confidence can once again lake root and normal political life can be resumed.

Mr. Healey: First, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I should like to express our sympathy with the relatives of the missing men. As the right hon. Gentleman will realise from earlier debates in the House, hon. Members on this side congratulate him most warmly on the decisions that he has taken concerning aid to both India and Pakistan. We particularly welcome the fact that he has given £5 million additional direct aid to the Indian Government, on top of the existing aid ceiling, and that that is also in addition to the £1 million U Thant's appeal. On behalf of the Opposition, I share the Minister's hope that other Governments will follow the very generous lead given by the United Kingdom.
On the question of Pakistan, I cannot guarantee always to be in a position to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman so warmly, but I want to say how much we agree with what must have been a very difficult decision for him, namely, not to give any further aid to Pakistan until there is convincing progress towards a political settlement. On that subject I want to put one point. Does not he agree that by far the best way to initiate pro-

gress would be for the Pakistan Government to release Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from gaol and to begin to negotiate with him as the only representative of the overwhelming majority of the population of East Pakistan?
The House may recall that that precedent was often followed by previous British Governments in similar situations, not only in Kenya, Cyprus and in the sub-Continent. We in Britain have never had cause to regret taking such action.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for the statement I have made. On the political point, of what is to be the political future of Pakistan and the political structure, it would not be helpful for me to make suggestions at this moment in public. We have made many suggestions in private. The President is making a statement on 28th June. One would hope—and we have expressed this hope to him—that he will be able to bring together with West Pakistan the elected representatives from the East. We think that this is essential.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly made a very welcome statement, both on the increased British aid to India and on the refusal to give further aid to the Pakistan Government at present. I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question based on the communiqué issued after his talks with the Indian Foreign Minister yesterday. He spoke of a solution acceptable to the people of East Pakistan being necessary for a political solution to the whole problem of refugees. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has put to the Pakistan Government the proposal that some external body that might be acceptable to them as well as to the others be brought in to help supervise the situation there to see that a solution, when it is put forward, is truly acceptable to the people of that area?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is a very difficult question. I am not anxious to make public statements on what we have or have not said to the President of Pakistan. We have indicated—I joined with the Indian Foreign Minister in saying this—very clearly that there must be a political settlement which is broadly acceptable to the people of East Pakistan. I do not think that I can go further or even suggest that an external body would help


in this situation. I very much doubt it. This must be settled by Pakistanis for Pakistan.

Sir F. Bennett: May we revert to the unhappy fate of the two missing British subjects? Can my right hon. Friend say when we first learned of this and when their disappearance is supposed to have taken place? Is there any suggestion that the Pakistan Army is responsible for this? If that were so, it would have a pretty profound effect on many of us who have done our best to maintain a balanced attitude in this matter.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am afraid that the facts are rather obscure about Mr. Chalmers and Mr. Boyd. There is some hope in that one or both are said to have been seen over the Indian frontier.

Mr. David Steel: I visited the family of Mr. Boyd at the weekend in Hawick. They will be grateful for the expressions of sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have registered for them. Considerable distress was caused to the family by a most unfortunate report in the Daily Telegraph on Friday which stemmed, I am sorry to say, from the unofficial parliamentary delegation in Pakistan, to the effect that Mr. Boyd had been shot dead. This report is merely one of several conflicting and unconfirmed reports as to his whereabouts. May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman expects to receive a report from the British High Commissioner in India, who I understand has now received permission to visit the frontier area to make a search for these two men?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are trying to do everything that we can to locate these men and obtain the true story of what has happened. It is extremely difficult to do this, but our missions in Dacca, Calcutta, Islamabad and New Delhi are now constantly trying to trace these men. The hon. Gentleman can assure the family concerned that every possible effort is being made.

Mr. Wilkinson: When will the Pakistan Aid Consortium meet again? I would remind my right hon. Friend that not so very long ago he said that the long-term future in East Pakistan was causing concern, especially the food

prospects in a period beyond three months from now. This is a matter to which the Government and other Governments in the Aid Consortium should address themselves most seriously.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree with my hon. Friend. This can be divided into two parts to some extent. The United Nations representative and team there are assessing the likely food needs in two or three months' time. It will then be for them to recommend what future financial assistance may be necessary, both from individual Governments which are willing to help and from the Consortium.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon, Gentleman aware that it has been known for some time that he has had a very sympathetic and humane approach to this question, and this has been confirmed by his statement today? Without wishing to be disparaging on the amount of £8 million, may I ask whether he is aware that this will pay the Indian expenses for only about eight days? May I ask, further, if he has seen the report in The Times today, from a very experienced reporter in Calcutta, confirming the continuing genocide in East Bengal? In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to take this problem to the Security Council so that effective action may be taken on behalf of the world community to bring this disaster to an end?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. I would not give that undertaking to take it to the Security Council. The Indian Government has made no such proposal, and I think that, therefore, we had better consider for the future, after the President of Pakistan has made his statement, what the chances are of large numbers of refugees going back to East Pakistan. It would certainly be premature to involve the United Nations in that respect.

Mr. Kilfedder: No doubt my right hon. Friend is aware that I have recently returned from East Pakistan and West Pakistan. I am sure that he realises that, despite what was said by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I made no public report that one of the tea planters had been killed. Would not my right hon. Friend agree with the excellent leading


article in The Times today, in which it is clearly stated that one should encourage the Islamabad Government to seek a political solution, which is the only hope for East Pakistan? Also, does my right hon. Friend realise that unless food goes into East Pakistan by the end of July, famine will be widespread in the province?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir, I realise this. This is why it is essential that the United Nations team should make a recommendation soon as to what will be necessary to supply food to East Pakistan. There is the additional difficulty of broken communications, which, for example, makes the area struck by the cyclone inaccessible except by sea. We are considering these matters. The great thing now is that journalists will be able to move freely about East Pakistan, and we should, therefore, get a balanced picture. It has been very difficult to establish the facts before.

Mr. Torney: Would the Foreign Secretary agree that many of the refugees would probably go back to their homeland if Government troops were withdrawn? If he agrees with that, would he consider making representations to the Pakistani Government, and would he consider persuading them to accept replacement of their troops by a United Nations force?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There must be a political settlement. There must be a civilian Government installed. It must be for that Government's administration to assess the situation. The hon. Member will recognise that only the army at the moment can deal with the distribution of food.

Mr. Crawshaw: The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the situation will get worse unless confidence is restored in that part of the country. Unless the people there have a feeling of confidence that if they remain their lives are not at stake, they will join the exodus of the other people and the money which we are giving will be of no use at all. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman will not take the matter to the United Nations, he might be able to make some suggestions about impartial people being placed in the country, to restore confidence and stop the exodus.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that confidence must be restored. To ask the United Nations now to make suggestions within the political context would not contribute to the restoration of confidence.

Mr. Robert Hughes: One of the two missing British civilians, Mr. Chalmers, is a constituent of mine. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement today, for the considerable efforts which he and the Foreign Office have made to try to find these men, and for keeping Mrs. Chalmers and myself informed. In view of the very great difficulties involved and the difficult job that the people in the area are doing at present, would the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, consider sending from this country a special search mission to the border areas to try to find these men? Despite the appalling suffering which is taking place in that area, the suffering of the dependants of one person is very important, too.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will consider any suggestion. We have everybody possible on the job of looking for these men. The Indian Government are co-operating because, although we do not know this for certain, it was on the Indian side of the frontier that they were last seen.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Am I correct in assuming that the Secretary of State said that when the supply of food is resumed to East Bengal it will be done by using the Pakistani Army as an agency for its distribution? If this is so, many of us would look at the situation very much askance and would fear that it would be used by the Army more as a method of politics and of discrimination than for the relief of famine.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The distribution of food will be supervised by the United Nations representative and his team. The hon. Gentleman should face the fact that as of today in Pakistan there is no other means of distributing food to the outlying districts than with the help of the Army.

Mr. Russell Johnston: As the Secretary of State says, a political settlement is absolutely vital in the end. Does the right hon. Gentleman see no scope for a joint Commonwealth intervention to assist the facilitation of a political settlement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That must be for the Government of Pakistan to say. The hon. Gentleman realises as well as I and everybody else does that Pakistan is an independent country. It must settle its own political future. Unless the political future is settled by Pakistanis it will not stick. If anybody can help, help is better given behind the scenes.

BILLS PRESENTED

HOUSING BILL

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Carr, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Secretary Davies, Mr. Julian Amery, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, and Mr. Paul Chan-non, presented a Bill to increase the amount of financial assistance available under Parts I and II of the Housing Act

1969, and under certain provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 and of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969, as respects expenditure incurred in local government areas wholly or partly within development areas, or intermediate areas under section 1 of the Local Employment Act 1970: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 199.]

HIJACKING BILL

Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Michael Noble, Mr. Richard Sharpies, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Anthony Grant, Mr. Anthony Royle, and Mr. Antony Lambton, presented a Bill to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 198.]

Orders of the Day — LICENSING (ABOLITION OF STATE MANAGEMENT) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

TIME LIMIT FOR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY

For the purposes of this Act any property held by the Secretary of State in the state management districts in England or in Scotland which is not disposed of within one year of the original notice of sale shall be regarded as having reverted to the ownership of the Secretary of State for a period of not less than five years.—[Mr. William Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
It is right for the House to spend two more days on a Bill which is so vital to the national economy. Everybody knows the degree to which it will contribute to the solution of the pressing problems of inflation, rising prices, unemployment, and other national troubles of this Government's making. Clearly the Bill ranks as one of the Government's top priorities. Hence the two days that we have been given for its completion in this place.
The original Bill provides no time limit within which the flogging off of these public houses and hotels to the paymasters of the Tory Party shall be completed. An enormous game of bluff is being played by the brewers. They have indicated that they are not interested in this property and that anybody who thinks that these properties are goldmines is out of his mind.
Some of us on this side and one hon. Member opposite took the trouble, at our own expense, to perform our public duty and inspect our property in Carlisle during the Whitsun Recess. We visited certain of the pubs. We visited the brewery. Those who had a taste for the stuff drank it in limited quantities. We were impressed by what we saw. We understood from those on the spot that long before the election the brewers had been

snooping around Carlisle casing the joint, finding out exactly what the loot was that was to be promised to them by a Tory Government.
It is very valuable loot. The Central Hotel, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) and I stayed, stands on a very valuable site, apart from the value of the hotel itself. I understand that the site next to it, on which had stood a hotel, was sold to Tesco for £½ million. So the Central Hotel, presumably, which stands on a bigger site, would on the site value alone, if development permission were to be granted by the local authority, as it no doubt would be by the Carlisle authority, be worth much more.
The original Bill instructs the Secretary of State, by Clause 2 as regards England and by Clause 3 as regards Scotland, to dispose of the property. There is nothing about a reserve price or a time scale—he must get rid of it.
The purpose of the Clause is to give notice that, if the sales are not completed within one year of the original notice of sale, whenever that might be—presumably it will be after the Bill has gone on to the Statute Book—there will be automatic reversion to State ownership for a period of not less than five years. That is a reasonable proposition which the Government should readily accept. If we are to get through the Bill in two days the Government should rise quickly and say, as this is the essence of co-operation between the two sides, that as a measure of their good faith they accept the Clause.
The experiment in public ownership of pubs in Carlisle, Gretna and the Cromarty Firth areas has been a success. Profits have been made. I know that the hatchet man at the Department of Trade and Industry may well think that they have not made enough, that they are rather drunk lame ducks, and that therefore they ought to be sunk. On going round Carlisle, and in particular one pub that we visited, I was much impressed by the fact that there was a bowling green attached to it. The pub was on a council estate. It was a community centre. There is no doubt that if the premises were taken over by a private brewer that bowling green—a social amenity—would disappear. It would disappear because it does not happen to


make a profit. It is a service to the community. Indeed, we were told there that people who play bowls take a glass of beer on to the green and that is that. A private brewer would not be interested in that kind of activity—unless, of course, the bowlers took a barrel of beer out with them on to the green. It is this kind of problem that one should take into account in this matter.
The Under-Secretary of State has never shown as much taste for this Bill as he has shown for the weak brews of beer foisted on the public nowadays. But he did his best in Commitee. He knows—because we quoted from the authoritative version of the brewers' bible, the Morning Advertiser—that the brewers intend to hold back. He knows that if the State is saddled for an indefinite period with the properties, questions will be asked by hon. Members opposite as to why the Government are not reducing the price in order to conform with the statutory duty to get rid of them. The only statutory duty in the Bill as drafted is to dispose of the properties. There is not even to be a reserve price.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made a memorable speech to which we shall refer later. It was the Gettysburg speech of the brewers' loot Bill, in which he laid down the procedures he intended to take. It is interesting to note that he has not put them in statutory form. We are, therefore, faced with a situation where, if the Bill gets on to the Statute Book as at present drafted, the brewers will know that the State must get rid of the properties and that there are no safeguards whatever. It is true that there is something about the national interest—
…on such terms as appear to him expedient in the public interest …"—
whatever that might mean. The Government might define that national interest as getting rid of the properties at any price. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman went a long way along that path by saying that it was not the business of the Government to be in the liquor trade. But, of course, the Government are in the liquor trade—to the extent of about £150,000 a year—indeed, more than that—which the Conservative Party gets from the brewers. So the

Government need not say that they are not in the liquor trade. They are very much in it.
The experiment at Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty has been going on for nearly 60 years. It is popular in Carlisle. The evidence we obtained demonstrated that. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), who also visited the area, would not dispute that the vast majority of the people of Carlisle are for the retention of the State management scheme.

Mr. Idris Owen: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say that the majority of the people in Carlisle are in favour of retention of the State management schemes unless he has taken a poll. I have met many people in Carlisle who are opposed to retention.

Mr. Hamilton: I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis). This was a major issue in the election in Carlisle. Indeed, the Tory candidate went out of his way to state categorically that he was in favour of the retention of the State management district and my hon. Friend had a very considerable majority. He is here for life now as a result of what the Government are doing by the Bill and the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), who is not in his place, will be out at the next election, partly because of this Bill, but for other reasons as well.
The second half of the new Clause refers to a reversion to State ownership
… for a period of not less than five years.
If one assumes that within the 12 months no sale takes place and the property therefore reverts to the ownership of the State for a period of not less than five years, we get a total of six years, which means that in the intervening period there will be a General Election.
If we had a General Election tomorrow the Tory Party would be decimated. Very few right hon. and hon. Members opposite would come back to the House. Of course, the situation might change between now and the next election. They might not be decimated. They might be half-decimated. But there is no doubt that there will be a change of Government, and one of the propositions which I am sure will be in our


manifesto will be something on the liquor trade. I speak only for myself in this, but I make no secret of the fact that my constituency party has sent a motion to the annual conference of the Labour Party calling for the nationalisation of the seven big breweries. If we get this incorporated in our manifesto and we win the election, I do not know what the Conservative Party will do for its election funds. It will be in very great difficulties. It will have to appeal to the marijuana lobby or to the pot lobby or to the bookies. It will have to get funds from sources other than the brewers.
The five-year limit which I propose would give the electorate a chance. The Prime Minister is always prattling and prating about consulting the electorate on the Common Market. We want to consult them about the Carlisle pubs. The answer will probably be the same—they are against the Government offering the pubs to the contributors to Tory Party funds and against going into the E.E.C. That has nothing to do with beer in the E.E.C.—although, on second thoughts, it might, of course. I am not expert in that matter, so I do not know.
If the Government do not accept the kind of time limit proposed here, I hope they will indicate that if at the end of the 12 months which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself estimated it would take to sell off the properties they have properties left on their hands, then those properties will automatically stay there. It would be a nice gesture, a conciliatory gesture, if he said, "If we cannot get the price we want, if the national interest would be jeopardised if we gave them away, we shall hang on to them for another period of five years." It is a reasonable proposition and I hope that the Government will accept it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) began by saying that we would need two days to deal with this part of our consideration of the Bill. As he made his speech it occurred to me that it was the most ponderous speech I had ever heard him make during the time I have been in the House.
Gone was the bright spritely "Willie" we all know, gone was all the cut and thrust of which we know he is capable. It seemed that he was really digging in

for a long siege, and I felt that a good deal of his speech was superfluous because we have heard it all before. He repeated almost everything he had said on Second Reading.
He repeated all the jibes we had before about the brewers—jibes which were so scandalously uttered at the Second Reading debate. At least his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has not had the face to return to the House today after the quite disgraceful speech he made on Second Reading. For small mercies let us be thankful. This is a most extraordinary idea which the hon. Gentleman has put forward in this new Clause. Looking at it, I can only think that it is a wrecking Amendment. It is clear that the only intention behind it is to hinder the determination of the Secretary of State to get this enterprise off the State's back. It seems that this new Clause is moved only for its nuisance value. I cannot believe that it is being seriously put forward and I will be surprised to hear that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) approves of it—although I will not be surprised if he feels that it is better, in view of his earlier views, to keep quiet.
What would be the effect of this new Clause? The hon. Gentleman never told us. What would be the effect of saying that the Secretary of State must dispose of these properties within 12 months and, if he cannot, must hang on to them for five years? It would mean that the Government in carrying out this operation would be obliged to meet delays of 12 months. Prospective purchasers would be very reticent about coming to an agreement in the earlier stages of this 12-month period. Prospective purchasers would be tempted to hang on until the last few months hoping that the Government would be so anxious in those last few months to get rid of their properties that they might drop their price.

Mr. William Hamilton: Mr. William Hamilton indicated assent.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman nods his head. He agrees that the price of the properties would drop during the last few months. I am glad that he agrees and it seems extraordinary for an hon. Gentleman to try to put the Government and the State in this position. Hon. Gentlemen are the first to come huffing and puffing when State industries are put


at any disadvantage, yet here the hon. Gentleman seeks to put the State at a disadvantage. This proves to me that this new Clause is wholly mischievous.
Let us see what would happen if it were accepted. Any properties not sold during the course of that first year would have to be held by the Government for a further period of five years. We know that the Government, quite rightly, want to get rid of the properties and to get these enterprises off the State's back.
Is it likely that in the further five-year period any modernisation will be done? Will many improvements be carried out when the Government have shown that they are anxious to divest themselves of these properties and clearly will do so after the five-year period is up? Will there be any extensions or improvements to the bowling greens that we have been hearing about? The answer is clearly "No". There will be no encouragement if they are waiting for the end of the five-year period.
If at the end of a year the Government have managed to get rid of a large number of the pubs and were left with the brewery and a small number of pubs there would be a wholly unbalanced operation with insufficient pubs and hotels to keep the brewery going. This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation. It is necessary that the pubs and hotels and other properties will have to be sold first, before the brewery itself is disposed of.
It would look silly if the brewery was sold and we were left with some of the pubs, because it would leave some of the pubs in difficulties over supplies It is obvious that the pubs and hotels would have to be dispensed with first. The brewery must be left until later. It is typical of Socialist planning, to which we are so used, that the hon. Gentleman should try to foist a new Clause like this upon us, which would leave a wholly uneconomic and unbalanced operation.
The hon. Gentleman gave away the intentions of this Clause, apart from the mischievous side of things. The Opposition are hoping that there will remain a residue of nationalised properties to be held over for a period of five years, which could form the base for future nationalisation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are deluding themselves into believ-

inng that a miracle will happen and that there will be a change of Government in the next ten years.
If they are hoping to keep a residue of properties in the Carlisle area and in Scotland to use as a base for further nationalisation then we should be told that this is the policy of the party opposite. The public have the right to know whether, at the next election, the Labour Party manifesto will contain a pledge that the Labour Party will nationalise the liquor industry.
I posed this question on Second Reading and got no answer. We must have an answer. The hon Gentleman has made a clear case for doing this. He said he hopes that it will appear in his party s manifesto and now I rather hope that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock will get up and tell us whether he will press for this to go into his party's manifesto. The country ought to know whether at the next General Election, to the added horror of a Labour Government there is a possibility of "Labour locals".

Mr. John Golding: I would be very happy if these assets were to be renationalised. I have noticed that at union conferences, Labour Party meetings and at public meetings in recent weeks when any speaker pledges the Labour Party to renationalisation of assets they get a substantial cheer. When they add to this statement the promise that the greedy men who are now taking people's money will get their fingers burned, the cheers are louder still. We on this side should have no qualms about saying that we will renationalise those assets which have been denationalised by this Government. Nor should we have any qualms in demanding that that should be done without compensation.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): As the basis of the argument of hon. Members opposite in Committee was that we should sell these public houses to individual tenants, am I right in assuming that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that they should be taken from the individual tenant without giving him compensation?

Mr. Golding: If the Bill provided for disposal to existing landlords and not to the brewers, if we on this side of the


House were not conscious that the Bill rewarded the brewers for their substantial contributions to Conservative Party funds and if the disposal was to be achieved on different grounds from those envisaged in the Bill, our arguments would be different. We are not arguing against a Bill which has not been introduced. We are arguing against a Bill which has been introduced to reward the brewers for their substantial contributions to Conservative Party funds. We can discover from Tory Party balance sheets the reason for the talking among hon. Members opposite about denationalisation.
For that reason, it is important, and would be in the interests of the people who might buy the pubs, that the assets should not be sold immediately but kept in ownership for at least five years, because we are confident that at the end of that time we shall be in government and we should adopt a very different attitude towards public money from that adopted by the present Government.
I do not think there is any validity in the argument that the management of the Carlisle State Management Scheme would run down the assets merely because there was an outside chance of disposal after five years. That would not be the attitude of any landlord who expected to sell the assets for the best price he could obtain. Perhaps there would be a grain of truth in that from a party which was concerned, not with selling the assets at the best possible price, but only with disposing of the assets as a reward.
For those reasons, I support the new Clause and I hope that our Front Bench will advise us to divide on it.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: The speech of the hon. Member Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was a mass of contradictions. I do not say that he twists himself—I could never visualise him doing that—but he bends himself almost double. He argues first one way and then the other. He did it in Committee, where we were amazed at the rapidity with which his arguments changed during his lengthy speeches.
First, the hon. Gentleman wondered why two days have been allotted to discuss the Bill. The reason is that we

knew what to expect. Of the 30 Amendments and nine new Clauses which have been tabled, only two of them emanated from the Government side. That is why two days have been allotted to the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman then referred to the importance of this matter. He said that the Government had put it before all the other major issues confronting the country. But we cannot accept that argument from hon. Members opposite, because we then come to the most important factor for them—the defence of nationalisation. What is the extent of the nationalisation with which we are concerned today?—170 unlicensed properties, 150 licensed houses and 10 hotels in Carlisle, and 45 houses in Scotland. The arguments of hon. Members opposite do no carry any weight.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that we should not get rid of these properties in 12 months. He talked about valuable sites worth £500,000 perhaps next door to hotels which would make the hotels worth considerably more than that. I do not envisage anybody holding back on development if the prospects were as good as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The hon. Gentleman does not want these properties to be sold for another five years because he hopes that by then the Labour Party will be in office. He told us what his local association was doing to ensure that the public houses were nationalised. Apparently, the seven major breweries are to be nationalised. Good luck to his association. T hope that it gets the support of the Socialist Party for its policy. But nationalised Labour locals would be abhorrent to people. They do not want to drink State beer. They are not at all enamoured with that prospect.
The hon. Gentleman then tackled the proposals of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for disposal. My hon. and learned Friend's proposals are fair, above suspicion and just, and I was delighted to hear them. They will cease to be fair, above suspicion and just if they are hacked about by the Labour Party.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) talked about greedy men. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State intervened to ask the hon. Gentleman about individual tenants, with whom I was concerned on


Second Reading. Are they greedy men because they want to own their own businesses? No. The hon. Gentleman had better not go round the country saying that about people who are legitimately carrying on business. Are they greedy men because they dare to want to conduct their businesses in a private enterprise way and to do things for the country and themselves? If that is the way in which right hon. and hon. Members opposite think, they have a divisive nature and they will split the nation in two.

Mr. Golding: Before the hon. Member sits down—

Mr. Kinsey: I have sat down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): If an hon. Member does not give way, or when he sits down at the end of his speech, that is the end of the matter for the moment.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I hope the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) is not losing his grip, but this is the second consecutive speech I have heard him make when he has not revealed to us one of his multifarious occupations and given us a fascinating glimpse into his experiences which have been and could be of such strength and value to us. I hope that this will be admitted to us in the course of the two days.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) got himself into a tremendous furor. I glanced through his Second Reading speech and noticed that he suggested that a number of houses should go to tenants or managers and be operated as free houses. I would refresh his memory of the Committee, where strenuous efforts were made by this side to try to make sure that this would, in fact, be possible.
All through the Committee I tried to be fair to the Government—

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to my speech. I was delighted that in Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that a certain number of these premises would be offered
at or near … valuation to the individual sitting tenant and he will be given, by private treaty, the opportunity to acquire should he

so wish."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1971; c. 392.]
That is precisely what I asked for, and I am very pleased that my hon. and learned Friend was able to meet my point.

Mr. William Hamilton: Read the Bill.

Mr. Cocks: I appreciate the point which the hon. Member for Westmorland has made, but we made strenuous efforts to try to obtain from the Minister some sort of assurance that some of the money to be realised from the sale of the properties would be made available to tenants or managers who might wish to purchase to establish free houses, to free them from the grip of the brewers who offer loans on very low and diminishing interest rates. So it is not simply a question of valuation. We have impressed upon the Minister that goodwill should not be taken into the valuation because that would mean that an efficient manager, who had tried to build up the business, would be penalised and have to pay over the odds as a result of his own good efforts. I hope that the hon. Member will accept from me that we have been into this matter thoroughly. Even so, we are not satisfied that the Minister has done the very best for these people.
Before the hon. Member's intervention I was saying that I tried to be fair to the Government during the whole of the Committee on the Bill, and indeed, when some of my hon. Friends were pressing the point which has been put very strenuously by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) regarding the motives of the Government in disposing of these properties, I put the view that the motives must be seen more as some sort of sop to be thrown to the forthcoming party conference in the autumn—as some form of disengagement from the State sector, and to show that things are really moving and that private enterprise is flourishing. I took it much more in terms of a propaganda exercise.
However, I was disturbed when I visited Carlisle and talked to some of the people running the properties, because they told me that within a week of the General Election result being announced representatives of the big brewers were looking over properties and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West would


say, casing the joints. This caused me genuine concern, because it did not square with what I heard previously.
A further cause of concern was what I read in the Morning Advertiser—some remarks which were attributed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury talking about the problems of "the trade", as it is known, and he said that some problems turned out to be non-problems and he described, or was reputed to have described, the Monopolies Commission Report about beer as the "biggest non-event of the decade",
During the Second Reading debate I pointed out the very serious monopoly position of Courage's in my own constituency. I fet at that time that there was some sympathy on both sides of the House with what I said and that something might possibly be done about that position. I am disconcerted if in fact the Financial Secretary actually said what he is reported to have said and if that is a reflection of the attitude of the Government, and, if it is, a great deal more pressure will be exerted from this side of the House to try and remedy the situation.
I do not know that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West is quite right in referring to the Morning Advertiser as the brewers' bible, because it is concerned also with the problems of licensed victuallers. My hon. Friend will know that licensed victuallers are very often in dispute with the brewers over various points, and while I do not say that this applies to everybody, I think that some of the brewers' treatment of their managers and tenants leaves a great deal to be desired.
To return again to Carlisle, the point made to me very strongly there was on this question of the return on capital about which we heard a great deal on Second Reading when a great many figures were put forward. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) will once again discuss this matter and give us the benefit of his experience. It was put to me that the restrictions were such that these figures were not true figures of what the State brewery scheme could do if the restrictions were lifted. I was given as an example somebody, having great satisfaction from brewery products, who established a branch or business

somewhere else but was able to build it up because of this restriction on the area actually served.
I am still trying to help the Government in spite of everything, and so I support this new Clause very strongly, because I believe that another interpretation, other than the one which has been put on it from the other side, is that this is a Clause to protect the Government, and to protect them from the accusation of disposing of State properties at knock-down prices. I would have thought that, after all the charges which have been levied against the Government in this matter they would be only too glad to accept a Clause which would protect them from that sort of thing, and the charge of a forced sale of these properties.
It is well known that a forced sale is a thing to be avoided at almost all costs. Hon. Members will remember that a couple of days ago the Financial Times had a supplement on the question of property and property bonds. Hon. Members will know that property bonds have been a popular form of investment lately. They have performed well in the ordinary share index. However, it is recognised that these property bonds, which are a form of unit linked insurance, are open to grave doubts, first of all because valuation is very much a matter of opinion; no matter how professional the valuation is, it is still, in the end, a matter of opinion; but also, whatever the valuation put on a property, in the event of a forced sale there is absolutely no guarantee that one will get the price or even anything near it.
If it is known that the State is to dispose of these properties, and, moreover, is to dispose of them all at once within the space of a few months, the condition of a forced sale applies. I would have thought that the ultimate sanction, if the worst came to the worst, and if we think of the public interest being represented by getting the best possible price for these assets, would be, if we cannot get any reasonable sort of price, not letting them go. Why should we push the people who dispose of the property into the position of being blackmailed? Sir Hilary Scott's committee is investigating property bonds because of these weaknesses, and the weaknesses of this form of investment are equally


arguments in favour of the Clause. The Clause also prevents properties going into limbo if they are not disposed of, and enables them to be held, and I cannot see the force of the arguments against this.
5.0 p.m.
I believe that the Government probably regret bringing in the Bill. The decision may have been made in the higher echelons of the Government with out a great deal of thought. Somebody said, "Just dispose of these State pubs to show that we are disengaging." The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has been left with an extremely unpleasant task, acting as butcher boy—

Mr. Tom Boardman: Before the hon. Gentleman comes to the end of his speech, if I do not take up his challenge to explain the figures it is because I consider it to be out of order on this Amendment. An opportunity to do so may arise later. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was condemning the breweries for making advances at a low rate of interest. Is he suggesting that it would be more honourable for them to charge a high rate of interest for the loans given, or that they should not help private enter-price in the form of tenants and working-men's clubs who want advances to enable them to extend the business? Is he saying that the brewers should make no advances at all?

Mr. Cocks: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's wishing to keep in order, and I hope that during the next two days we shall have the benefit of his accounting and financial experience. On the point he asked me, I do not think it is necessarily objectionable for breweries to make substantial advances, but I understand that advances are made on the basis that the house takes their beers, or at least a large proportion of them. If the loan is made on a purely altruistic basis, I am delighted to hear it. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on Second Reading said that tenants and management should have the opportunity to acquire the houses, and that they should be run as free houses. In those circumstances, it is highly desirable that a source of finance should be

available to tenants or managers so that they could run a free house if they wanted to do so. If they wanted to tie themselves to a brewer, well and good; the money would be useful.
The Bill is a pointer to Government thinking. I am astonished that this should be regarded as a matter of great priority. The Government will come to regret the Bill, particularly if the proper ties go for less than the generally recognised market value. New Clause 1 offers an escape route to the Government against charges that State property has been disposed of at less than market value—

Mr. Idris Owen: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer this question? Let us assume that 75 per cent. of the premises under the management of the State board have been disposed of at the end of 12 months, and the board is left with a residual property which is not of much character. Does he consider that the remaining 25 per cent. would be a viable unit as an outlet for a brewery? Does he not think that it would be a loss-maker for the remainder of the five years?

Mr. Cocks: It may be that outlets with small barrelage are not very attractive propositions. There are special problems here which were discussed at length in Committee, and I should not like to say anything which might prejudice the prospects of a brewery. In these days of rationalisation into larger units, there are difficulties in disposing of a small property, but there is a great deal of other property. The Arcade in Carlisle consists of a large block of property, and only one or two of the properties are not owned by the State management scheme. This site has great potential development. Once we start offering properties for sale we cannot think in terms of preserving any substantial viable unit. To attract reasonable offers, parcels of houses may have to be made up so that a brewery has a guarantee that it can acquire X number of houses. As the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) knows from his experience, these problems are almost intractable, and that is why it is such a pity that this proposal was ever made. I wish I could give a more satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Idris Owen: There is not one.

Mr. Cocks: There is not one, and this is one of the most unfortunate aspects. The Clause is a safety net for the Government and, even at this late stage, they may feel inclined to accept it, particularly as the Whip who was so faithful in Committee is here. Whilst one cannot always tell from their facial expressions what people are thinking, he has followed with keen interest our discussions about property disposal, and he is at the moment showing a complexion which, from our experience in Committee, we think may be favourable to us.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: As I was not a member of the Committee, I hope the House will excuse me if I mention one or two matters which have been dealt with in Committee. I cannot help comparing the doctrinaire attitude of the Government to the disposal of State pubs with their attitude to selling off council houses. The attitudes are quite different. The Government's attitude towards the sale of council houses is that the tenant should have preference and that a loan should be available to the tenant to enable him to buy the house. Many local authorities, particularly Tory councils, have widely advertised the sale of council houses and encouraged tenants to buy them.
In the selling off of public houses the Government exhibit a different attitude. There is no great demand that public houses should be sold to tenants. The Government want to bring in a third party—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that this is not a Second Reading debate but that we are confined to the narrow terms of new Clause 1.

Mr. Ashton: I am coming to the new Clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am now comparing the attitude on leases, covenants and other restrictions in regard to the disposal of other State property with the situation in the Clause which attempts to put restrictions on the Government for such State properties as public houses. A third party could be introduced into such sales; namely the brewer—on the same lines as if a third party, a landlord, were introduced in the sale of council houses.
There would appear to be a difference in Government philosophy on this matter.

Nobody suggests that council houses should be sold to landlords, but if council houses are sold to tenants, why should public houses not be sold to tenants? Is this all tied up with the fact that the brewers contribute so much to Tory Party funds?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has looked carefully at the terms of the Clause. I hope he will do so and will confine his remarks to that narrow issue.

Mr. Ashton: I will come to the Clause in regard to the proposal for a period of not less than five years. We all know that there are good public house properties as well as bad ones. We should also remember that shops and private houses may also be disposed of under these provisions. The Clause covers all properties, not just public houses. If these properties are not sold in the first year, we consider that they should revert to State ownership. If this course is not followed, tenants will be in a state of limbo since they will not know whether they will be made redundant after a period of 12 months, and will be most uncertain about their future.
Another aspect that must be considered is the transfer of licences issued to publicans by magistrates' courts. What will happen to these licences if after 12 months properties are returned to the State? If the property is in process of sale, what will happen to the licence? Will it be transferred to the newly-built public house which will replace the old one, or will the licence go by default and a new licence have to be applied for in respect of the new premises?
There is a great deal of speculation in the area about the Bill's effects. The purpose of the Clause is to try to prevent some of this speculation and to allay the anxieties of tenants and people who own property other than public houses. Although this is a relevant matter, we have had no answer on it from the Government either in Commitee or today.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that assurances had been given in Committee that a great deal of help would be given to tenants; but there is no specific proposal on these lines in the Bill. Tenants of public houses, and indeed tenants of other properties in Carlisle, have been left in a


state of uncertainty. The Clause attempts to regularise the position by providing that such a situation will exist only for a period of 12 months. If at the end of 12 months nobody is interested in the property, then it will revert to the State.
There is nothing wrong in this suggestion. When the State sells off Ministry of Defence properties, or when local authorities dispose of old houses or council properties, the State or local authorities lay down that if properties are not sold within 12 months, they are to be taken off the market and revert to the previous ownership. This is normal property dealing. An ordinary person selling his house may well say to the agent, "If you do not sell my house in six months, I will take it off the market." Why is such a procedure so wrong with State pubs? Why is it regarded as wrong for the Minister to say "This property is worth £50,000, and if it has not fetched this figure in 12 months, we will take it off the market"? What is the reason for the Government's objection to this Clause?

Mr. Michael Cocks: Would my hon. Friend not agree that what any private individual in selling a house must try to avoid is to over-stretch himself in his financial commitments, and is this not the sort of situation from which we are trying to protect the Government?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ashton: I agree with my hon. Friend. A further consideration arises when one of these properties cannot be sold for the price it is worth. Is it not possible that a cartel of brewers could get together and say "We will force down the price of a property by not making a bid for two or three years"? If this happens, some of these properties might well be closed for a considerable time. This may lead to these properties receiving the attentions of vandals, with windows broken and these properties becoming full of cobwebs. Will not the value of the properties fall if they are left untenanted for any length of time? We all remember what used to happen in the art auction world. When a painting came up for sale dealers got together and agreed upon a price to be paid for it and, because nobody else put in a higher bid, a "kill" was made in that

way. I do not say that this will happen in this case, but there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that this will not happen.
By putting forward this Clause we are trying to avoid waste of public money. We are also seeking to protect the people who live in these properties, whether they be shops or private houses or public houses. Finally, we are seeking to protect Carlisle from invasion by speculators who may be out to shut down the pub because it presents competition to other public houses elsewhere. If there are three pubs in an area and two are closed down, obviously the remaining pub will do a better trade. This will not be good for the consumer, who may have to go half a mile down the road to a pub he does not like because his local has been shut down to avoid competition.
Therefore, we should be much happier with the situation if a public house or any other of these properties reverted to State ownership when not sold within a period of 12 months. This is certainly a situation that would meet with the full approval of the people of Carlisle.

Mr. Idris Owen: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the proposals put forward in the Clause. They are contradictory and do not achieve what they would appear to be trying to achieve if they wish to get the best possible deal for the State. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite object to denationalisation, the Clause will not give the best possible deal under the circumstances.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) was in somewhat of a dilemma in answering a question I put to him on this matter a short while ago. I am one of the hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have walked the streets of Carlisle in the past month. I have visited a brewery and certain licensed premises, and I have seen for myself that there are some properties which are desirable and others not so desirable. Indeed, there are some which are pretty shocking.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Name them.

Mr. Owen: I am referring to the one near Mole Street, plus the one at the bottom, which is regarded as a pretty poor public house. It was pointed out to me as a bad example. Will not the


situation be that anyone interested in a property will inspect it and decide to make a bid, or will make a bid with a view to purchasing by private treaty?
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a considerable portion of the State asset might be disposed of by private treaty to the sitting tenants of small off-licence premises or the smaller pubs. It is conceivable that at the end of the magic year which is being discussed 75 per cent. of the most desirable property would have been disposed of, and we should be left with the remaining 25 per cent., consisting of the less desirable property.
In such a situation, I am thinking of the brewery. Here is an asset that I should like to see protected.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Come over to this side!

Mr. Owen: Let us consider the situation of the brewery. At the moment, its production capacity is 1,500 barrels a week. It has lost a considerable amount of that trade to the clubs, and at the present time its production is running at 1,000 barrels a week. Assuming that 75 per cent. of its trade is denied to it because 75 per cent. of the State houses have been disposed of, the brewery is left with a potential output of 250 barrels a week. If anyone suggested to the management of the brewery that it could survive on 250 barrels a week, I can imagine the answer that would be given. However, that is the situation that the brewery might be forced to face for five years, merely to maintain a doctrinaire attitude that we must not let go.
I ask hon. Members opposite to look at the economic sense of their proposal, however sincere they may be as the main advocates of Clause Four.

Mr. Ashton: But if the brewery was not sold and 75 per cent. of the pubs were sold, surely the situation would be the same? The brewery would be reduced to 250 barrels a week and be in very difficult circumstances.

Mr. Owen: We shall come to that when we discuss the disposal of the brewery. At the moment we are discussing an Amendment which suggests that if the properties are not sold at the end of a year they are to be retained for a further

period of five years. That is quite unacceptable economically.
I appreciate that the main objective of hon. Gentlemen opposite is Clause Four, the nationalisation of all means of production, distribution and exchange. They are loyal to that clause. But their economic sense must not be blinded. It is ridiculous to suggest, as the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has done, that the Amendment makes economic sense. I found the hon. Gentleman's arguments in Committee quite fascinating, but this is possibly his poorest effort. I do not know who encouraged him to move the Amendment, but he has been done a great disservice.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I am delighted to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), of whose sincerity I have no doubt. I was very pleased when he visited my constituency. I trust that he found my constituents friendly.
I make no apology for taking part in this debate. The greater part of the State brewery and its subsidiaries lies within the boundaries of my constiuency, the City of Carlisle. What is more, I make no apology for my intervention, bearing in mind that I am an ardent supporter of the temperance movement. It may seem illogical to some people that I should have spoken as often as I have in our discussion of this Bill. I realise that I have an obligation to my constituents, irrespective of my personal views, and I know the social habits of society today. Therefore, not having abdicated my responsibility, naturally I put my name o the Amendment, and I am delighted to support it.
I look upon the general principle of the Bill as one of public enterprise versus private ownership. I come down every time on the side of public ownership. In Carlisle we have under public ownership a greater measure of control than we shall have if this Bill becomes law and the pubs are sold. The North of England Temperance Movement is on record as having asked the Home Secretary to keep the State management scheme in being.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) is not in his place at the moment, since he has made a number of interesting interventions during our debates. However, I was


amazed a little earlier to hear him accusing my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) of being hypocritical. He went on to say that the British public has the right to know what will be the policy of the Labour Party at the next General Election. I cannot agree more. But the hon. Gentleman forgot to say that never once during the last General Election campaign did the Tory candidate in Carlisle or even the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), suggest that the Government intended to denationalise the State management pubs.

Mr. Ashton: Just like the Common Market.

Mr. William Price: And free school milk.

Mr. Ron Lewis: My people in Carlisle do not believe what the Government say. They promised to do a number of things at a stroke. If nothing else, certainly they are trying to sell these pubs at a stroke.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that if the pubs are not sold in 12 months, they will be retained by the State. As a result of the introduction of this Bill, I now have one of the safest seats in the country. The hon. Member for Stockport, North, on the other hand, now finds his seat in jeopardy. Within the next five years we shall have a General Election—

Mr. Ashton: This autumn.

Mr. Ron Lewis: —and a Labour Government will be returned, and we shall be able to undo some of the wrong that this crowd is trying to do

Mr. Dennis Skinner: At a stroke.

Mr. Ron Lewis: At a stroke, yes.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Westmorland once more in his place.

Mr. William Price: He has been for a pint.

Mr. Ron Lewis: We have been told that at the moment, the brewers are not interested. I must contradict that. They have spent weeks in Carlisle under assumed names. They have been round

the pubs asking questions. They have been to the brewery. They are waiting for this Bill to become law, when we shall find immediately that they are in the market.

Mr. Idris Owen: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's views. Apparently he and his colleagues are disturbed lest we are not able to dispose of the property. He is now saying that the brewers are crowding in on Carlisle, desperate to get to the auction sale.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: They are crowding in because they are hoping to get it at a give-away price. We are seeking to protect the taxpayer. As long as we remain in this House I hope that we shall continue to protect the taxpayer. After all, the State Management Scheme is the taxpayers' business. I am anxious to retain this scheme because it produces the cheapest beer in the country. The beer produced by the State brewery is approximately a shilling a pint cheaper in Carlisle than in London.

Mr. Golding: Ask the hon. Gentleman what the price is in Stockport.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I do not know what the price in Stockport is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue prices elsewhere or anywhere, but will keep within the terms of new Clause 1.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that two barrels of this beer were delivered to this House this morning with the best wishes of the State Management Brewery and hoping that we would sample it before coming to a final decision on the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that far from that question arising within the scope of the new Clause, that is not a point of order.

Mr. Ashton: On a further point of order. May I ask when it will be possible to raise this subject of the action of the Chairman of the Catering Committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members can find ways and means of


raising most things without the assistance of the Chair.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I appreciate that the question of price—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the prerogative of the Chair to assist hon. Members when debating a subject, either in Committee or on Report, by making available all reasonable matters which may assist them in coming to a decision on matters which have been raised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you must hear me out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not be entirely surprised that I get the gist of what he is trying to convey. However, it might raise a wide question whether his suggestion would be helpful or otherwise in assisting hon. Members.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: With respect, it is not within the prerogative of the Chair to decide whether something will or will not assist hon. Members. My point is that one can, and does, ask for papers and documents to be made available and Mr. Speaker often says that, with the aid of the Library staff, he will make available those papers and documents. Sometimes they are for, sometimes they are against, and sometimes they may or may not have any relevance. However, that is not for the Chair to decide. If the House feels that it is necessary to have papers and documents which may assist it to come to a decision, the Chair usually says that it will, through the usual channels—it may be through the Vote Office, the Leader of the House or the Services Committee—endeavour to make them available.
I have been a Member of this House for almost 27 years. I have known dozens—in fact, hundreds—of cases when exhibitions have been laid on and samples, plans and drawings have been made available, with the aid and assistance of Mr. Speaker and his staff through the Serjeant-at-Arms, the Vote Office, the Paymaster-General or whoever or whatever it is. We have a Services Committee

—I am on a serious point—we have the Leader of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. However serious the hon. Gentleman's point, it is not a point of order.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I bow to your Ruling about prices, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not in his place today. People in Carlisle certainly do not trust this Government. That is why I mentioned the price of beer in Carlisle and why I support the proposal in the new Clause that those properties not sold within 12 months should be retained by the State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) reminded the House that his constituency party feels so keen about the Government's decision to hive off within the next 12 months that it has put down a motion on the agenda for the Labour Party conference suggesting nationalisation of the breweries. People in Carlisle feel the same way about it. In fact, we have put down a motion in almost identical terms suggesting the complete nationalisation of the seven big brewery companies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will realise that that is not in new Clause 1 either.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I appreciate that latitude was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West. I was trying to augment what he said. If it was right for a previous occupant of the Chair to allow my hon. Friend to develop his point, then I claim the same privilege in support of what he said. We want to see the seven big breweries nationalised. People in Carlisle hold the view that if we nationalised the seven big breweries income tax could eventually be cut by about 2s. in the pound—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: They would lose all their profits.

Mr. Ron. Lewis: —because of the profits. Therefore, I certainly support the complete nationalisation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has already expressed its view on the content of new Clause 1, and it certainly does not include this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order. My hon. Friend was merely drawing attention to the previous old Clause Four.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be able to do that for himself if and when he wishes to do so.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North about the bad premises which he found in Carlisle. I repudiate what he said about them. The average pub in Carlisle is better than the average pub throughout the country. Some are better than others. When people who make allegations about the State pubs are asked to prove them, they are not forthcoming. Indeed, it was rather strange that members of the Locomotive Society of Worcester, whose president is the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), should make a visit to Carlisle to see the railway installations. A few days after their visit I received a stinking letter from a gentleman who said that the Carlisle pubs were dirty and disgraceful. When I asked him to produce the evidence supporting his statement he could not or would not produce it. I have since made inquiries and have come to the conclusion that this is a technique to try to discredit the State pubs in my constituency.

Mr. Ashton: It is an attempt to bring down the price.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I promised the gentleman concerned that if he would provide me with the names of the public houses he had visited and found dirty and uninviting I would make a complete investigation. That was nearly three weeks ago, and I am still waiting for an answer. The only information that I have received is that the gentleman who made the remark is a sympathiser of the Conservative Party in South Worcestershire. It is no wonder that such allegations are being made about public houses in my constituency.
This afternoon a number of hon. Members have made particular reference to a barrel of beer. I should like to make—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no such reference in the new Clause.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The hon. Member for Stockport, North, who visited the brewery at Carlisle, referred to the barrels of beer

that are produced there, and I am trying, in my humble way, to do the same, because if the Clause is included in the Bill these barrels of beer will play a very important part, indeed.
In my constituency there are many public-spirited people, and they are not all in the Labour Party. I am sure that they would support the Clause which I am trying to support. One of these good, public-spirited persons, who in the past acted as election agent to a previous Tory Member of Parliament for Carlisle, thought that hon. Members did not know anything about Carlisle pubs. He there fore purchased two barrels of beer yester day and despatched them to London so that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member appears to be returning to a former course. I must ask him to return yet again to the new Clause.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I am trying to come to that, because we are talking about barrels of beer, and barrels of beer are connected with the new Clause. I there fore claim that I am in order. We are talking about barrels of beer in the new Clause, and within the precincts of the House there are two—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot go on on that tack, and he knows it. He must refer to the new Clause.

Mr. Ashton: The new Clause says:
For the purposes of this Act any property held by the Secretary of State in the state management districts in England or in Scotland which is not disposed of within one year of the original notice of sale shall be regarded as having reverted to the ownership of the Secretary of State for a period of not less than five years.
Surely it is in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The new Clause says:
For the purposes of this Act any property held by the Secretary of State …".
It does not say what the property is. Surely a barrel of beer is property in that sense, because everything within—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Mr. Ron Lewis

Mr. Kinsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we be protected from facetious points of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been no point of order so far.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) said that the capacity had gone down from 15,000 barrels to 1,000 barrels. He went on to say that if 75 per cent. of the pubs were sold and 25 per cent. were left, it would mean that the barrelage of beer in the State brewery at Carlisle would be depreciated by that amount. The hon. Gentleman was not called out of order for saying that. I do not see why you should differentiate between what was said by the hon. Gentleman and what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intends to imply what is suggested in that remark.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I drafted the Clause, and had clearly in mind not only the buildings, but the beer within the buildings—I was thinking of property, which includes everything—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member, as the promoter of the Clause, is trying to help, but that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Hamilton: I am trying to help the House and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because only the drafter of the Clause can know what he means by the word "property". When I went to see the property in Carlisle, I did not just see the buildings. I saw the barrels of beer. In fact, in some of the pubs the barrelage was more important than the building. To try to distinguish between the buildings and what is in the buildings would make nonsense of the Clause, and the last thing I want is a nonsensical debate on an extremely serious matter. I hope, therefore, that you will agree with the view that when we discuss property we should be able to discuss also what is in the buildings, which is the beer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it would be the feeling of the House that the

debate was going fairly wide on the Clause.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to speak to the Clause, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends. We are talking about property, and a barrel of beer is the property of the State, or of a private enterprise company, whichever way one looks at it. Two barrels of beer were sent to London yesterday. They are State property. Unfortunately, the Chairman of the Catering Committee has undone the arrangements that were made.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Shame.

Mr. Ron Lewis: There are two nine-gallon barrels of Carlisle State beer within the precincts of the House of Commons ready for hon. Members to taste. I do not have a licence, and I am not a barman. Perhaps I could seek the assistance of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey). I hope that the Serjeant at Arms will not search the vaults. The barrels are there. For the benefit of my constituent who sent this beer down for tasting, I assure the House that it will be on tap within the precincts of the House even if I have to ask the Press Gallery to take it over and distribute it to my hon. Friends.

The Clause provides that if property is not sold the State will be allowed to continue operating in Carlisle, and that is what we want. That is what the majority of people of Carlisle want, and I assure the hon. Member for Westmorland that the majority to which I am referring is far superior to the majority which the Prime Minister is claiming in support of his policy for joining the Common Market. The majority of people in Carlisle want to retain State pubs. A General Election could take place much sooner than some people think. The people of this country, and certainly those in Carlisle, will not be taken in by anything that the Prime Minister says at the hustings at the next election. I see that we have the Government's second team on the Front Bench today. They are the juniors. Not one member of the Cabinet is here to support this proposal.

Mr. Skinner: They are supping that ale.

Mr. Ron Lewis: My people in Carlisle are chary of the dealings behind the scenes of the right hon. Member for


Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw). Therefore, I support the new Clause.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: This is a helpful and useful Clause, and the Government must be kicking themselves for not having included a similar provision. They should thank the three sponsors of the Clause for their original thinking. This will resolve the Government's embarrassment. Of all the Bills introduced since 18th June, this is the most embarrassing for them.

Mr. William Ross: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate the embarrassment which they were caused by the speeches made when they had to introduce a Bill to nationalise Rolls-Royce.

Mr. Garrett: That pales into insignificance compared with the importance of this Bill in Scotland and Carlisle.
The two Ministers on the Front Bench look happier tonight than they did during the many hours in Committee, when I was worried about their appearance. They seem to have got over the initial shock of our attack in Committee. By the end of today, they will probably feel very embarrassed again.
The period envisaged in the new Clause will also help the Government to study the implications of the sale of these properties. One of the things which they have misunderstood—I am surprised that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has not grasped this, since he is a legal man—is the time factor involved in valuation and legal fees. The time factor given in Committee was quite unrealistic because of the slow working of the legal and valuation professions, this useful Clause will give the necessary time to get a fair valuation for the taxpayer.
We have been accused of being doctrinaire and nationalises for the sake of nationalisation. This is denationalisation for the sake of denationalisation. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who, unfortunately, could not get on the Committee but who has made a speech today, which I unfortunately missed, must be embarrassed, because his constituents more than anyone enjoy the advantages of the State brew. He enjoys it himself.

Mr. Jopling: With respect, the hon. Member has a short memory. He may remember that on Second Reading, when he was here—I believe he interrupted my speech—I said there were no State pubs in my constituency.

Mr. Garrett: I wish the hon. Member would listen. I was talking of drinkers, not pubs. The hon. Member is an avid drinker of the State brew when he is in form—

Mr. Ron Lewis: Because it is cheap.

Mr. Garrett: —and when the price is right. He knows when he is getting value for money.
It would be a good idea if the two Ministers got together with the Whip and quietly accepted the new Clause.

Mr. Perry: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my intervention a few moments ago was near the bone, but I felt that when a supporter of the Government had been allowed to speak about beer and barrels my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) should at least have been allowed to comment on that.
My hon. Friend has had to suffer a sniggering and sneering campaign by several hon. Members opposite, as he has this evening. We know my hon. Friend's temperance views, but, despite those views, he is prepared to fight for the interests of his constituents. It is to his credit that he has taken up the cudgels on behalf of the publicans and consumers of Carlisle.
Over a fortnight ago I put down a Question to the Home Secretary about the number of hereditaments that the Home Office owned in Carlisle and the environs. It was handed in as an Oral Question on 10th June, was transferred to the Written list and I received an answer dated Tuesday, 15th June. I had
…asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the properties under the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill which will be disposed of, and give full details of the hereditaments.
My answer from the Under-Secretary of State was:
I will send the hon. Member a list of the properties concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1971; Vol. 819, c. 73-4.]
At four o'clock today I was handed a list of the properties concerned; and it


was only a list, with no details of the hereditaments or the rateable value. It did not say whether they were tenanted property or how much rent was paid. I asked for the full details and so far I have not had them.
I must thank the Under-Secretary for the reply that I have had, however. He said that he was sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland would also send me a list of those in Ross and Cromarty. I have not had that list either. We should at least know what we are disposing of.
But the Under-Secretary of State has given me a comprehensive list of 340 properties to be disposed of in Carlisle, of which 170 are licensed premises. The remainder, over 170, are not licensed premises and vary from brewery flats and houses to cottages and all sorts of hereditaments.
In Committee we suggested a visit to Carlisle and Ross and Cromarty to see the type of property of which we were disposing. This was, of course, turned down. Unless an hon. Member went under his own steam and paid his own expenses he has not been able to see the properties whose disposal he was discussing in Committee.

Mr. Garrett: Is my hon. Friend aware that several hon. Members on this side of the House went to see these properties at their own expense and in their leisure time during the short Whitsun Recess?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Perry: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that the whole House is thankful not only to those few hon. Members but to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen)—who is not in the Chamber at the moment—who went at his own expense to find out about the breweries and the conditions in the public houses.

Mr. Garrett: Has my hon. Friend any information whether the Ministers have been to Carlisle or to Ross and Cromarty?

Mr. Perry: I have no information about that, and at the moment I should not want to tax them with the proposition that they should go. I realise that the Under-Secretary is a very busy man. He has conducted many Bills through the House and has taken part in many debates. He has done a very good job,

and I pay full credit to him. We thank him for much of his work, I should not want to tax him with the task of visiting these places. He has officials who can do that. But when I see 340 properties being disposed of straight away—this enormous block of properties in Carlisle—I am concerned about the people who are occupying them.
I am concerned with the tenants of tied cottages or houses. I hope that they will be protected. If the public houses are sold privately will the present tenants remain? I want an assurance from the Minister that no tenant will be evicted from his cottage or home simply because the owner had him on a tied cottage basis. I believe in a house-owning democracy, and I want to be sure that the present tenants of these cottages and houses are offered these places.
In Committee we had some amusing moments, and we sat long hours, but this is a matter of great importance to us. We oppose the Bill, but we want to make sure that the tenants or managers of the public houses—the little people who are affected by the Bill—receive the right degree of protection.
I want to refer to the breweries and the acquisition of properties under the Bill. The Library has looked out some figures for me relating to five of the largest breweries in the country. On 1st July, 1970, just after the General Election—I should not be so facetious as to say "just after the promises had been made to sell this stuff off"—the price of shares in Allied Breweries was 84½p. On 12th May, 1971—just as the Committee on the Bill began to sit—those shares stood at 125p, an increase of nearly 50 per cent. In the same period the price of shares in Bass Charrington rose from 85½p to 130½p, an increase of nearly 53 per cent. In the case of Courage's they rose from 79p to 115p. an increase of nearly 50 per cent. Watney Mann shares rose from 84½p to 120p, an increase of 40 per cent., and Whitbread's rose from 50½p to 70½p, an increase of nearly 40 per cent.
I would not say that the increase in the values of those shares was related directly to the sale of these establishments in Carlisle, but there is no doubt that from 1st July, 1970, to 12th May, 1971, somebody made a fortune out of breweries.

Mr. R. B. Cant: Being a man of few words, I did not intend to intervene, but I want to respond to the few remarks made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), who is now absent from the Chamber. As an expert in rating and valuation—and heaven knows what else—he made some comments which interested me. They were strictly pertinent to the Clause. In parenthesis, I should have liked to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) into the stock market and conducted a little analysis on the prices of beer shares, but I am afraid that I might be ruled out of order.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North used a phrase which is quite traditional in valuation circles but which I have always regarded with a measure of profound suspicion. I am sorry that he is not here to correct me if I misunderstood what he said, but I thought he said that towards the end of the negotiations it may be necessary to dispose of the remaining properties by private treaty. It was the phrase "private treaty" which aroused suspicions in my mind.
I have a great respect for valuers. Valuation is the most non-scientific of all the sciences. It is, perhaps, the most subjective of all the sciences, although it is wrapped in a great deal of esoteric terminology. One of my hon. Friends has suggested, quite improperly, that it is also the most lucrative. I have always seen a subtle connection between the degree to which a thing is esoteric and the financial reward that it attracts.
As hon. Members have said, the Government have more or less committed themselves to disposing of these assets in a notional period of about a year. That raises many objections—objections that are all the more powerful because of the context in which this operation is to be conducted. The Government are not disposing of a few assets scattered around the country; they are disposing of assets of a highly specific character with a high degree of localisation. In Committee somebody—it might have been me, although I hate to repeat myself—said that we have here the classic case of what an economist has referred to as not so much a monopoly as a

monopsony—a situation in which the Government are trying to dispose of assets on a scale that I had not suspected until my hon. Friend gave the figures. They are doing this as the sole sellers, faced with an oligopoly of buyers. That is an extremely good word. It is a little useful shorthand to describe the situation. I am referring to only six or seven of our great brewery monopolies. But this is the situation, however much this is disguised and however much this confrontation is described in other terms.
As will no doubt be discussed later in the Bill, we are going to bring in panels of valuers, and these panels will operate in a true spirit of Adam Smith's invisible hand, the market economy, and so on, but on behalf of the Government, and this will be very well known to the brewers.
Having studied all sorts of economics for quite a long time, I cannot see how this cat and mouse situation—that is all it amounts to—can result in anything other than a position for the Government, by the end of a period of about 12 months, of almost total capitulation. I say that because despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) has talked about the value and attractiveness of these assets, we know only too well that as a package these assets have not a uniform attraction for the brewers and that this brewery will be closed. The only attractive assets might be, perhaps, the better hotels or pubs. So they have to look at a situation in which they say, "All right, we want these particular components. We do not want the brewery." Even though they are going round Carlisle in disguise, incognito, or in any particular form, I do not think that they are seeking—

Mr. William Hamilton: Disguised as Ted Heath.

Mr. Cant: That might be difficult. I am sorry if I have given offence. I withdraw that, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), I hope that I am a reasonable man and I like to be fair to the Government in all circumstances. I do not see a situation in which the brewers can be in any other position than one in which they are trying to take the assets over but to take them over, to borrow a phrase from one of my hon. Friends, at a knock-down price.
This is complicated by the whole question of the process of valuation because with the best will in the world and with the most charitable feelings, especially if we have to accept that some of these smaller pubs will be disposed of to the tenants—I hope there is common agreement on this—the price of a pub can be anything. Anyone involved in local government knows that only too well.
What sort of situation will arise at the end of about 10 or 11 months when the Government are desperate to get this deal clinched—because it is the only success they are likely to have during this Parliament—if their valuers do what, as professionals, they are almost bound to do and say that there must be incorporated in the price of even a humble pub an amount for goodwill? I say this because the only card of authority that I have to play is that as a chairman of a planning committee in a fairly large city, one often has to face this particular problem of buying a pub. If one were buying it as a normal fiscal asset it might go for about £1,000. But it would not be too far fetched to say that if one were selling it complete with its licence and its goodwill, as the tenants of many of these pubs in Carlisle will have to accept as a basis of valuation, it is not unusual for the price to be at least 20 times that amount—£20,000.
6.15 p.m.
In circumstances such as this, the valuers, acting on behalf of the Government and trying to do a job in a given number of months, will be faced with either breaching a principle, that these things should be sold to the sitting tenant, or enforcing the position in which they have to be given to the breweries at, in the aggregate, a much lower price.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North made one or two classifications of these pubs which I found interesting. He said that there were some good pubs. This was a great concession from the hon. Gentleman. He said there were some not so desirable pubs; and he said that there were some awful pubs. That was the sort of unique terminology that he introduced into the discussion. But who is to say which category these pubs fall into? We are moving into a period in which change is the keynote. I have no doubt that, at any rate, the anti-

Common Marketeers amongst us will have read in The Times recently about some strange things which have happened. But these undesirable pubs, these remnants of what certain drinkers like myself believe were some of the good traditions in English public houses, with out the juke box and without the things that are called sophistication—

Mr. Perry: And the topless waitresses.

Mr. Cant: I cannot speak with authority about strippers or topless waitresses. My education is obviously incomplete. When talking about valuations, we have the situation in which some of these old-style pubs are fast disappearing, alas, from the English scene, and no doubt to a lesser extent from the more civilised country of Scotland. My wife reads HANSARD and I have to make this occasional concession to her.
Whether we like it or not, we are part and parcel of this ritzy revolution in our pubs. The old pubs are being dismantled. Some are not being dismantled in the ordinary sense of being knocked down by bulldozers, but they are being taken down, outside and inside, and exported to the Common Market.

Mr. Perry: My hon. Friend has again mentioned his wife. As he mentioned her in Committee, has she explained to him the duties of the Procurator Fiscal?

Mr. Cant: That is something of a private joke, although before the Bill becomes law I hope to know not only who the Procurator Fiscal is but also the constitutional rôle of the Lord Advocate. I was merely trying to make the point in the serious context of the new Clause.
In whatever category the hon. Member for Stockport, North or any other hon. Member puts a pub, in future a greater premium may be attached to the old-style pub; and middle-aged drinkers like myself may take their nightly refuge in the old style pub which the hon. Member thinks is very bad, highly undesirable, or whatever it may be—spit and sawdust and all.

The Clause seeks to provide the Government with a safety net. Although the members of this Government are business men, although they no doubt have a genius for buying and selling assets, and although they are not prepared to do in the case of these State


assets what they are prepared to do in the cases of licences for North Sea gas—that is, throw them on to the mercy of the open market or the mock auction—at the end of 12 months they may be in a highly embarrassed state.

Beer defies all the traditional textbook illustrations of being a product with a highly elastic demand. Although there is a buoyancy about the beer market at present, and although, despite the increase in prices, the demand for beer continues to rise, so that the brewers' profits, even net of party contributions, rise substantially, no one can say when this may end. The Government may well get rid of these assets over the next 10 or 12 months in a market which will not be so favourable for their enterprise.

In these circumstances, they would be well advised to have such a longstop provision. Unless the Government are prepared to tell the country that they have virtually given the assets away, they would be well advised to have a provision of this sort so that they could call a halt to this undertaking.

I said in Committee that we should be more understanding of the Govern ment because they have had so few successes that they must be desperate to put one on to the Statute Book. Many of us felt a certain degree of incongruity in having to spend our time and dissipate our talents in Committee going through these Clauses when there were so many more important things to be done, but in this generous mood in which the Government find us we are prepared—

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My hon. Friend has referred to party contributions. Many of us are ignorant of what he means. I wonder whether that question comes into this matter. Will he explain the point?

Mr. Cant: I will not pursue that matter. It has been touched on from time to time. Doubtless my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will make another brief and oblique reference to it later. I merely said that, even net of tax and net of party contributions, the profits were substantial.
I hope that the Clause will be accepted—I confess that this is more hope than expectation—by the Government in the

spirit in which it is offered, because all that we seek to do is to render them this little service.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): In this wide-ranging debate on the Clause, the whole of which I have heard, I have heard little argument advanced by hon. Members opposite in support of the Clause. Many of the same old fallacies have been repeated. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) again expressed his view that for some reason only public houses owned by the State have bowling greens, and that private breweries do not run bowling greens in public houses. Next time he goes on a visit to Carlisle he may care to look in on the Runcorn division, where I can assure him there are many public houses in private ownership which have bowling greens, as there are all over the country.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) trotted out the old crack that he had only the second eleven to answer the debate. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office I thank the hon. Gentleman, because in Committee whenever he made such references he used to describe us as the third-rate team that answered debates. I can only assume that we have improved somewhat as a result of the work we have done.
It was fascinating to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) express what I hope will become official Labour Party policy—that apparently, although individual tenants should be encouraged to purchase public houses, the Government should then be prepared to renationalise the public houses without compensation. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman had read the Clause before he advanced that extraordinary argument.
In case the hon. Member was serious when he said that he hoped that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) would invite his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in favour of the Clause, I will remind the House of what the Clause does, what its effect would be, and what hon. Members opposite will be voting for if they are so unwise as to wish to advance an argument such as that put forward in the Clause.

The Clause would provide, as I understand it, that the powers granted in the Bill to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Scotland to dispose of these premises should continue, that Clause 1 should be passed and, therefore, my right hon. Friends' monopoly position in these areas should go, but that if at the end of 12 months my right hon. Friends have not succeeded in disposing of all the assets, a moratorium of five years should be placed upon the assets which have not been disposed of, although presumably at the end of that five-year period my right hon. Friends could start disposing of the assets again.

It is necessary to remind hon. Members opposite about the effect of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) used time and again the phrase that it was right that if these premises had not been sold within 12 months they should revert back to public ownership. He spoke of the possibilities of these public houses becoming cobwebbed and dilapidated as they lay empty waiting to be sold. The Bill means nothing of the kind. All it does it to remove the monopoly position of the Secretary of State in these areas and requires him to dispose of the properties held by him
…on such terms as appear to him expedient in the public interest.…
The Bill specifically provides, by retaining the powers under the 1964 Act to continue to trade in the area, that, until these public houses or licensed premises are sold, they should continue in operation with the scheme being run by the Secretary of State. We are removing the monopoly position of the Secretary of State but he retains his powers to carry on trading until disposal. There is no question of putting the premises up for sale empty for 12 months and then bringing them back to public ownership. They will remain in the ownership of the State until the moment of sale and will continue, under the powers of the Secretary of State, as part of the scheme until they are sold.

Mr. Ashton: If a brewery were to move in and build a brand-new public house on an estate, which had an effect on the trade of existing State pubs, what would happen if those pubs had to cease

trading because of lack of business and therefore could not be sold?

Mr. Carlisle: Because of the monopoly position of the Secretary of State, a brewery which attempted to do that now would have to have not only a licence from the local justices but the permission of the Secretary of State. Once the Bill is law, however, since it affects the Secretary of State's monopoly position, such a brewer would be in exactly the same position in the State districts as he would if he wished to build anywhere else. He would be subject to the obtaining of a licence from the local justices and he would have to satisfy them that there was a need for the new public house. In these circumstances, it is not practical to envisage a new public house being built and putting other public houses out of business.

Mr. Cant: But is it quite as simple as that? Once the monopoly power is diminished and a brewery is in a position to come in and build a new pub, it has to get a licence from the justices. It also has to get a licence from the local planning committee. What the local planning committee almost invariably does, as it will not deliberately produce excess capacity, is to say, "You can have this licence, provided you will give us three of the licences that already exist". That means that those three tenants are out of business.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is right. I overlooked the fact that, if a brewery wants to build a new public house, it has to get planning permission. But I was asked what would happen to the State-owned public houses if a new public house was opened on a housing estate, and I was pointing out that, in order to build a new public house, the brewery would have to obtain a justices' licence and also, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, planning permission, and that applies in the present State management districts as it does to any other part of the country. The effect of the Bill is to leave the Secretary of State trading in the area until he has disposed of the property, as he is required to do
…on such terms as appear to him expedient in the public interest…
under Clause 2.
The only purpose of new Clause 1 is to ensure that if, at the end of 12 months, the Government have not sold all the


properties, they must not attempt to sell the remaining premises for five years. It is difficult to see the logical justification for such an argument. Nor is there an economic justification. I thought that hon. Members opposite would say, as they said in Committee, that because I had mentioned that we hoped to complete the sale within 12 months, I was going so far as to suggest that we were committed to sale within 12 months and that there would be pressure on us to sell. But hon. Members opposite have literally stood that argument on its head.
Rather than being under pressure to sell unless we have new Clause 1, the reverse is the case. As the Bill is drafted, there is no time limit within which the Secretary of State may sell. All there is is a general requirement on him to sell
…on terms … expedient in the public interest…
Our estimate is that to sell all the numerous properties will take about 12 months. We might take less time than that; we may take longer. But we shall do it on the terms which are expedient. The effect of new Clause 1 would be that everyone would hold back. They would see that the Secretary of State was required to dispose of the assets within 12 months or keep them for another five years. They would recognise that he would not want to hold on to the properties for another five years and would prefer to sell them within the 12 months. The pressure would be on the brewers to hold back until the end of the 12 months, when they could come to us and say, "You cannot hold out any longer. If you do not accede to our price now you will be stuck with the remaining properties for another five years".
Thus, far from saving the Government from a forced sale, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) suggested would happen, the effect of the new Clause could be to force the Government into a sale on inexpedient terms at a time when it would be to their advantage to stand out against the terms being offered. All the cards would be stacked in the hands of the prospective buyers, because they could wait until shortly before the 12-month period had elapsed and then say, "Sell now or you will have to keep them for another five years".

Looking at this as a matter of expediency, if, for example, we had sold 90 per cent. of the premises within the 12 months, there would be tremendous pressure on us to get rid of the remaining 10 per cent. before the fatal date was reached because the Secretary of State would not want to keep the remaining 10 per cent. for another five years, with all the cost of running them that would have to come from the return that they would get. Far from being a safeguard against the Government being forced into a sale, the new Clause would force the Government into a sale against their will. It would be likely to reduce the price that the Government could get on behalf of the tax payers rather than increase it.
That is my main argument against the new Clause and I am sure that, if the Opposition reflect upon it, they will realise that it would be economic nonsense to put it into the Bill when the Bill already puts a duty on the Secretary of State to dispose on terms which appeared expedient to him. This point was made effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) and other of my hon. Friends.
I take the other point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach). Let us imagine that, as envisaged by the new Clause, we have got to the end of the 12 months and sold 75 per cent. of the premises. What will happen to the remaining 25 per cent. which have to be held for five years? The brewery will be left with a number of uneconomic outlets.

Mr. Ashton: That could still happen.

Mr. Carlisle: It could still happen but there is a greater danger of it happening under the new Clause. Is the Home Office to carry on producing beer which cannot be sold and to keep those premises for five years? What real concern will there be to repair, maintain or improve those remaining public houses when it is known that they will be got rid of at the end of five years? It has to be remembered that the overheads will continue during that period.
What is the argument in favour of this new Clause since I do not believe it to be justified on grounds of logic or economic sense? In the end it must come down to the remarks of the hon. Member


for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Within that period of the 12 months and the five years there may be a General Election and there may be a change of Government.

Mr. William Hamilton: There will be both.

Mr. Carlisle: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that because of his forethought the State will be left with that little rump of public houses or unlicensed premises which have not been sold off in the 12-month period? Is he really suggesting that it is his contribution to the expansion of State ownership under a Labour Government for them to find, if they were ever to take office again, that they owned six shops, seven hotels and three public houses in Carlisle and perhaps a couple in Gretna? It is a nonsensical argument. If the advantages of State ownership of breweries are so enormous, as has been suggested, I would have thought that he would be thinking on a much grander scale.
The hon. Member for Carlisle, who has attended throughout every minute of our debates but who is not at the moment present, said that he believed that if we nationalised the public houses we would be able to reduce income tax by 2s. in the pound. It seems that he has got it wrong, because it is the corporation tax paid by the brewers which helps provide the money needed by the State. The Carlisle State Management Scheme pays no tax at all. If the effect of nationalisation was that the State lost all income from the breweries it would have the effect of increasing income tax by 2s. in the pound, rather than reducing it by that sum.

The new Clause provides no protection, it reduces the bargaining position of the State as the seller of the public houses, and makes economic nonsense. It would leave a Government with a few properties left in an area which was no longer protected by any form of monopoly and which it was not in the interests of the public to run. I know that I will be chided for saying what I have said in Committee, namely, that I do not believe it is the duty of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to be running a few public houses in one particular area of the country. Running public houses is surely a matter for

private enterprise, not for the State. If it is for the State, it is certainly not on the basis of this new Clause which would leave the State with a handful of pubs in one small area in the North-West of England.

It came ill from the hon. Member for West Fife to comment about the importance that the Government placed on the debate in putting two days at the disposal of the House for Report. The hon. Gentleman knows that it was at the request of his Party that the two days were provided. Having listened to the standard of the speeches on this new Clause I think that the Opposition could have found a better use for the time.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I have heard that speech somewhere before—I heard it in the morning, in the afternoon and at two o'clock in the morning. May I remind the Under-Secretary of State—when he talks about two days being provided for the debate we were only able to finish because I withdrew a considerable number of Amendments, to be discussed later, on Report.

The Amendment deals with what happens when the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland begin, as they must as soon as this Bill gets Royal Assent, to get rid of these properties. In Carlisle the figure of more than 340 properties was given. It was the Under-Secretary who said that he hoped to complete this process within a year. That is 340 properties—about 170 public houses all in the same town—hotels and off-licences. If ever there were a buyer's market, there it is. It is bad enough to be in the position of having to get rid of these properties. Now the Home Secretary's deputy tells us that he will do it in a year, and that in advance of the passing of the Act, certain decisions have already been taken—and this applies to the Secretary of State for Scotland and as well—by the licensing bench in Gretna and in Cromarty Firth and the justices bench in Carlisle so that additional licences will immediately come into being. What kind of bargain will the State get out of this?

The more the sale is concentrated in time, the more the nation will lose. What we are dealing with here is something that was valued some years ago at about £4¾


million. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that there are certain embarrassments and difficulties for him in this? After all, he will be held responsible to the extent to which this is just handed over. He can reach the position, under the conditions which he has laid upon himself, when he must sell whether he likes it or not. He said—and I underlined the phrase:
on terms that are expedient.
With all due respect, that is not what the Bill says. He as a lawyer, would know that such a term would be contested in the courts. But the saving words are put in
…as appears to him expedient…
It can be the most unreasonable price, but so long as he can say that it appeared to him to be expedient he is covered in the courts.

Where are these properties in Carlisle? My hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) eventually elicited the information that there were about 340. Many were public houses in the old days, and more than 340 public houses were taken over by the State in 1915. Incidentally, I ought to point out that it was not a Labour Government at that time. This was not a scheme which began in the days of the Labour Government, and the Tory Party supported it then

Most of these properties, some of which are no longer licensed premises, having been taken out of use as licensed properties, but retained by the State management, are in the centre of Carlisle. I have heard it suggested that two-fifths of the centre of Carlisle is owned by the State management.

What wonderful opportunities there are for development and exploitation! The hon. and learned Gentleman has visited the State management hotel, so I was told, and saw the Angel Hotel, which was a temperance hotel, which was bought by Tesco, not as a hotel, but for development purposes. With development possibilities, these premises are very much undervalued. I am glad that hon. Members opposite appreciate that they are to be sold off and that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have limited themselves to a year in which to get rid of the properties.

My hon. Friend's proposal is that if, a year after they have been put up for sale, they are not sold, which gives about six months for the preliminaries and advertising and so on, they should be retained as part of a continuing State Management Scheme. That is what worries the brewers. It is said that the brewers will not buy. It shows the power of the brewers that they say that instead they will put up new pubs, acting on the comfortable guarantee that they will get licences.

Hon. Members should keep reading the Press on this subject, for the Press is full of stuff about the brewers. We have a director of Allied Breweries, which has had an increase in profits of from £19 million to £23 million in the first 32 weeks of this year. The brewers are now getting a return for the hundreds of thousands of pounds which they collect and give annually to the Tory Party. They do not need to have their policy quoted in Tory manifestoes, because they have direct power through the chairman of the Scottish Tory Party—the chairman of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. The tie is as close as the name McEwan Younger, a nice collection of names connoting the breweries in Scotland.

These transactions will be watched, and what we have tried to do in the new Clause is to protect the Minister. The brewers are not concerned about the Bill, but they are concerned about the legislation which it removes from the Statute Book. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been honest with us, he would have referred to the Clause which we were not able to discuss in Committee because of the speed with which the Government pushed the Bill through. The Secretary of State and the Home Secretary will lose their power of management, but they will not lose their power under Section 102 of the 1964 English Act to be in the business and, so long as they are in the business, the brewers will not be satisfied.

The brewers want the Government out of the business as quickly as possible, not because of the nice profits which will accrue from Carlisle—because they do not care very much about who owns the pubs in Carlisle so long as it is their beer which is being supplied—but because they are concerned about the power of the State to be in the business remaining on the Statute Book. That is the reason for speed. If the new Clause were accepted,


when the Tories left office—and they will and the people of Scotland wish that the election were tomorrow—the threat to the brewers would still be there, and the threat of extension would still be there.

One or two of my hon. Friends explained the complexities of valuation and striking bargains. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to be able to tell us that, no matter how he sells the pubs, the brewery will continue to exist. If he reads the company report of Allied Breweries in the Financial Times this morning, he will see that it has been able to increase its sales not of local brews, but through the more economic and efficient use of a more national provision of different brews, and the country's tastes in beer will have to change to suit the brewers, regardless of what people may like. This is the way to the higher profits, and I gather that Allied Breweries are looking forward to the next 20 weeks with even greater glee.

What will happen to the brewery? Will any of the brewers bid for it? If they do, what will they do with it? Will they not bid for it only to prevent it from falling into the hands of someone who might use it? Will they not probably close it down? This is an important aspect of the sale of the property. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware of the complexity of the job which he has undertaken with such glee.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the more offensive part of his remarks, to which I do not propose to respond, would he explain what he meant by his comment about influencing the licensing justices, which must have been implied by what he said about the brewers obtaining additional licences? Is he suggesting that the applicants for licences, brewers and others, will be able to influence the licensing court, to persuade justices to give additional licences, and that this is a responsibility of the Government? Is he saying that there is corruption in the courts as well as in the Government? If so, let him say so.

Mr. Ross: I only report that the brewers said that they were not interested in buying, but would build their own new premises. They can build their own new premises only if they have a guarantee of a licence. I expressed my surprise. I

should have thought that I spoke for all in saying that they have no right to take it for granted that they will be able to get licences. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in a provision to ensure that there is no proliferation of licences following this deal.
7.0 p.m.
We are dealing with a situation which has been settled for about 60 years—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Board-man) should have been on the Committee with us. We would have enjoyed his presence. We have heard more speeches today from the Government back benches than we heard throughout our Committee sittings.

Mr. Tom Boardman: rose—

Mr. Ross: Sit down. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should make his own speech.

Mr. Ross: I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman said that there was corruption. I hope that the shoe does not fit. He is speaking as a brewer. I am speaking as a member of the public.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can leave the matter there. He was a member of the Labour Cabinet. He was Secretary of State for Scotland and, I presume, among other things, had responsibility in the administration of these matters in Scotland. He has clearly implied that the brewers had the power by money to affect the decisions that they get from the licensing justices.

Mr. Ross: I have not.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman certainly left that impression. If he says that he did not intend to give that impression and does not believe that, he should clear up the matter by saying so.

Mr. Ross: I have a very good memory of what I said, and what other people have said, as the hon. and learned Gentleman should know from our Committee proceedings. I said that the brewers had power of finance in respect of what they supplied to the Tory Party and they did not have to rely on manifestos to get their way with it. It is wrong and untypical of


the hon. and learned Gentleman to seize on this point at this time and—

Mr. Jopling: rose—

Mr. Ross: I have not finished. We are not in Committee. We would have enjoyed the presence of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), too, in Committee. He might have done what other hon. Members opposite could not do—speak in support of the Government in the dirty job that they are doing.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West said that he would not refer to any of my more offensive remarks. He and his party had better live with the fact that the brewers make very generous contributions to the Tory Party. It is as simple as that. If people are wrong to draw conclusions from the fact that this Bill was not in the Tory Party's British manifesto, where did it come from? [HON. MEM BERS: "The brewers."] The hon. Gentle man knows quite well that the objection of the brewers—

Mr. Jopling: rose—

Mr. Ross: Not at the moment. The objection of the brewers is to the continuation by statute of the power of the State to do as was proposed in Section 102 of the Licensing Act—to supply and retail intoxicating liquor in England and Wales, and then relate it to a particular district. Not until that provision is removed will the brewers be satisfied, and it cannot be removed until all of the premises—and the definition of "premises" in the English part of the Bill relates to intoxicating liquor—are disposed of. Only when the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland by order get rid of the offending provisions will offence cease to be given to the brewers.

Mr. Jopling: rose—

Mr. Ross: I wish to deal with the new Clause and the reasons for my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West tabling it.

Mr. Jopling: This is a very important point.

Mr. Ross: If it was so important the hon. Gentleman should have covered it in his speech.

Mr. Jopling: rose—

Mr. Ross: I shall not give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has tried to intervene about six times. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman must not persist.

Mr. Ross: I shall come to the points made in some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite. If the brewers were asked whether they preferred the Bill as it is or the Bill with the new Clause inserted, I can assure the House that they would say, "Let us have the Bill as it is".
When the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) suggested that the property would be allowed to decay, he was speaking only for himself. Certain restrictions may well have been placed on State management in the latter days of the Conservative Party's 13 years of office when the Tories in Scotland were putting on the pressure. The pressure to get rid of State management in Gretna and in the Cromarty Firth came from the Scottish Tories. But let them go and see these properties. I think that the hon. Member for Stockport, North would agree that certain of the properties in Carlisle—some of them old, some of them very new—were a credit to any business and a considerable attraction. But if the Minister hamstrings himself by selling them all at once the State will not get the best bargain.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was a wrecking and mischievous new Clause. It is not, and it is not so intended.

Mr. Carlisle: Of course it is.

Mr. Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman may continue to say, "Of course it is". To my mind, it is protective and helpful from the point of view of the State and of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary. He said that the public have a right to know about these matters. He referred to what we would do if there was a General Election. Does he not think that the public in Carlisle had a right to know that the Government would do this? Does he deny the fact referred to by my hon. Friend the Membere for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) that the Tory candidate there went out of his way to say that the Conservatives would not do this?

Mr. Jopling: Answer my question.

Mr. Ross: I am asking the questions at the moment. I am dealing with this Bill, not with a Bill which will come after the next election. It might have been better if the hon. Gentleman had confined himself to the Bill, but to be relevant might have destroyed his argument and robbed him of the opportunity of making a speech.
I visited Carlisle with some of my hon. Friends. I do not know how many public houses I went into within about three hours. The only other day, Mr. President—[Interruption.] I am already talking in French terms. The only day with which I can compare it was when, with Eric Linklater and Jack House, I visited seven distilleries on Islay in one afternoon.
In Carlisle we met the people concerned during out visit. The Government should stop to consider whether, in their rush to dispose of these properties, they will be unfair to individuals. The most exaggerated phrase I have heard today was that used by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), who said that the Minister's proposals were fair, just and above suspicion. There are no proposals in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which one could call a proposal. There is only a power given to the Government, and how they carry it out I do not know. I would like to think they would be fair. [Interruption.] Is the Under-Secretary of State suggesting that there are proposals in this Bill? There are no proposals in this Bill. It is not as though it were even very long. It would take me five minutes to read out the whole thing, and there is no proposal in it. All it says is:
The Secretary of State shall dispose of property held by him for the purposes of Part V of the Act … on such terms as appear to him expedient in the public interest…".

We invited him at various times, and will again, to put, in a Schedule to the Bill, what the proposals are, but till that comes it is quite wrong for anyone to say that the proposals are fair, just and above suspicion.

I sincerely hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby, because I think this new Clause is necessary and desirable. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about "more than a year", and that was the first time he has ever done that, but I think we should decide this by going into the Lobby.

Mr. Spriggs: Would my right hon. Friend deal with the point about the brewers' contributions to Tory Party funds? This is causing a great deal of disquiet in the country and it is one of the points which ought to be explained—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may be right in his last observation—but not on this new Clause.

Mr. Ross: I hope that we shall get an opportunity to do that. I am sorry that one of our new Clauses relating directly to this has not been selected, but I think that there may be occasions during the evening when we may be able to advert to this and be in order.
However, as to this new Clause, I advise my hon. Friends to support it.

Mr. William Hamilton: I shall not be a minute, but I believe that the brief which the Minister read out was prepared for him by the brewers. The brewers do not like this new Clause, and that is sufficient for the Government.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 169.

Division No. 389.]
AYES
[7.11 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Doig, Peter


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Carter, Ray (Birmtngh'm, Northfield)
Dormand, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Driberg, Tom


Atkinson, Norman
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beaney, Alan
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dunn, James A.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Concannon, J. D.
Eadie, Alex


Bidwell, Sydney
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ellis, Tom


Booth, Albert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Evans, Fred


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Faulds, Andrew


Bradley, Tom
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)




Freeson, Reginald
Lawson, George
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Galpern, Sir Meyer
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Price, William (Rugby)


Ginsburg, David
Leonard, Dick
Rankin, John


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hamling, William
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sandelson, Neville


Hardy, Peter
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Harper, Joseph
McCann, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Sillars, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Horam, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Skinner, Dennis


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Huckfield, Leslie
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stallard, A. W.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marsden, F.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Taverne, Dick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Hunter, Adam
Mendelson, John
Torney, Tom


lrvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Janner, Greville
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Orme, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Kaufman, Gerald
Palmer, Arthur



Kelley, Richard
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kinnock, Neil
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. John Golding and


Lamond, James
Pentland, Norman
Mr. James Hamilton.


Latham, Arthur
Perry, Ernest G.





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McMaster, Stanley


Astor, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fowler, Norman
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Benyon, W.
Gardner, Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biffen, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Body, Richard
Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Boscawen, Robert
Green, Alan
Molyneaux, James


Bowden, Andrew
Grieve, Percy
Money, Ernle


Bray, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Brewis, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Monro, Hector


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
More, Jasper


Bryan, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Buck, Antony
Hawkins, Paul
Mudd, David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Philip
Nott, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Onslow, Cranley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornby, Richard
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Clegg, Walter
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Coombs, Derek
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Pounder, Rafton


Critchley, Julian
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Crouch, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Curran, Charles
Kilfedder, James
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis 


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj, -Gen. James
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy


Dean, Paul

Redmond, Robert


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kinsey, J. R.



Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rost, Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, R. A.
Simeons, Charles




Skeet, T. H. H.
Tebbit, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Speed, Keith
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Spence, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Sproat, Iain
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Stainton, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher



Stanbrook, Ivor
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Waddington, David
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Weatherill, Bernard



Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)

New Clause 2

RESIDENT TENANT OR MANAGER

(1) The Secretary of State shall so far as is practicable secure that resident tenant or manager of hotels and other licensed premises disposed of by the Secretary of State under sections 2 and 3 of the Act, shall have the opportunity, if the business previously carried on on the premises is continued by the person to whom it is disposed, of being employed in carrying it on on terms not less favourable than those appropriate to a manager so employed before disposal of the premises.

(2) In this section the expression 'resident tenant or manager' means a person who immediately before disposal by the Secretary of State was either the holder or one of joint holders of the tenancy or was employed as manager of the premises by the State Management authority.—[Mr. Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with new Clause 2 we should discuss—

New Clause 5

EMPLOYMENT OF EXISTING STAFF

It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in the disposal of property under this Act to ensure, where the disposal is to a person who carries on the liquor trade thereon, that such person will give the opportunity of employment in that trade to any worker employed by the State Management.

and

New Clause 7

EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL

After disposal of property under this Act, it shall be the duty of the Minister to transfer those members of the maintenance staff such as decorators, plumbers, carpenters, and other ancillary workers, desirous of continuing in Government employment, to other Government departments, in view of the fact there are a number of buildings in the area at present owned by Government departments, which could be maintained more cheaply than at present by private enterprise.

Mr. Ross: The new Clause has been prompted by meetings which I have had in Carlisle with tenants and managers. I was much struck by the quality of the personnel who were managing the Stale premises in Carlisle. They were a credit to the Home Department, which must have selected them. Many of them had spent many years in the State management agency going from one hotel to another and from one public house to another.
It often happens that decisions which are taken in the House affect people's livelihood. Here the Government have introduced a Bill to dispose of property, and this in turn will mean the disposal of jobs. It is not enough to say to the holders of those jobs that they will receive Civil Service compensation, and I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is nothing about that in the Bill.
I thought the best way to go about this was to try to get the Government to respond in the way in which we responded as a Government when we passed the original Act of 1916 which was continued in the Act of 1921, when the matter was reconsidered after the First World War. New Clause 2 is not a pale copy, but an almost precise copy of Section 106 of the Licensing Act, 1964, and of Section 84 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959. Section 106 reads:
The Secretary of State shall so far as is practicable secure that a resident tenant or manager of licensed premises acquired by the Secretary of State under Section 104 of this Act shall have the opportunity, if the business previously carried on in the premises is continued by the Secretary of State, of being employed in carrying it on on terms not less favourable than those appropriate to a manager employed in a business such as was carried on in the premises before their acquisition.
The Under-Secretary of State will probably say that the position is entirely different because the premises were acquired by the Secretary of State; it was the Secretary of State who carried on the business and who had the power of


employment, the power to appoint managers and to grant tenancies. But, remember, the words are as strong as they could be:
as far as is practicable secure".
It is right that when bargains are struck in relation to the sale and disposal of these licensed premises the Secretary of State should again, as far as is practicable, at least make the effort to see that the persons who are employed and the managers are given the opportunity by the incoming purchaser to continue in business. Many of these people since the publication of the Bill on 3rd February have not known what to do. They have not known whether they would lose their right to compensation if they accepted another job before the Bill became law. The least we can do is to make this effort to ensure that their case for continuation of employment is made when the bargain is struck.

New Clause 5 covers almost the same point, although it is phrased in different language. It says:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State … to ensure … that such person will give the opportunity of employment in that trade to any worker employed by the State management.

New Clause 7 deals with the special problem of people who are employed in the brewery. There are many skilled maintenance staff not only in the brewery but dealing with many other properties. We met representatives of these people who felt that they should receive consideration. In these days of high and rising unemployment it is not enough for compensation to be given, no matter how generous that compensation may be in comparison with what would be received in private business. The assurance of a job in which these people can continue their trade is of great importance.

I do not know the extent to which the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) saw the staff associations and the trade unions of the managers of hotels in addition to those of the managers of licensed premises. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite appreciate exactly what this means to ordinary people. These are men and women who have worked hard and given satisfaction, and about whom ex-Ministers in this House have expressed satisfaction, and

they have a claim on us for special compensation.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I wish to draw particular attention to new Clauses 5 and 7. It is well known that a number of hon. Members visited my constituency during the Whitsun Recess, and we took the opportunity to meet as many members of the State staff as possible, members of the office staff as well as ordinary workers. All had a genuine grievance and felt they could not put much faith or trust in the Government. They asked for words on the lines of these Clauses to be written into the Bill so that these workers would be adequately covered in respect of redundancy pay, compensation and prospects of future employment.
I wholeheartedly support the claims of my constituents in this matter. If the Government are genuine in their desire to do everything possible to help the people affected, then they should be able to agree to these Clauses. In March of this year, a Mr. Ross from the Home Office—he has no connection with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. William Ross)—visited Carlisle. He met the unions and those employed in the State scheme and promised to report back to them regularly every month. Since that time those workers have not heard a word from that gentleman, and they have been genuinely worried about the situation. They have asked me to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the undertaking given to them by Mr. Ross about reporting back has been ignored. These people feel they have been let down.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give serious consideration to the situation of these constituents who want to be treated as normal human beings and who do not wish to be thrown on the scrap heap. This is what could happen to many of them, especially those who are aged between 50 and 55. Carlisle already has a high incidence of unemployment, and the situation is much more serious than it was a year ago. Therefore, these workers are rightly worried and wish to see their pension rights safeguarded. Furthermore, those who wish to carry on in Government employment wish to be given the opportunity to do so.
There are other Government establishments in the area, and the plumbers, painters and ancillary workers, as well as other staff, feel that the Government at least could examine the possibility of transferring those who wish to be transferred to undertake work in those other Government establishments. There are one or two workers who do not wish to transfer. Some possibly will receive compensation or redundancy payments amounting to three and, in some cases, four figures. I can appreciate their point of view, and I would not deny them the opportunity to act as they think fit.
Many of the ancillary workers at the brewery have done a wonderful job, and their services should not be lost. They are seeking to include these provisions in the Bill so that their rights may be safeguarded. This surely is a reasonable request when one bears in mind the rising unemployment figures in my constituency. I know what unemployment is all about; I know what it is to sign on the dole and to tramp the streets looking for work. There is nothing more demoralising, and this could happen to these workers in Carlisle. If the Government ignore our pleas and these people are made redundant, then some of them may never again be employed.
I make a personal plea on behalf of these people. Indeed, I have a moral obligation to do so. I would not be carrying out my duties to my constituents if I allowed this opportunity to go by without speaking on their behalf.
If the Government are genuine in their desire to look after the interests of these workers as far as is humanly possible, I would ask the Under-Secretary, even though he is in the "second team", as it were, in his Department, at least to put out "feelers" to the Leader of the House, some of whose constituents could be involved in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman must bear some responsibility for the situation in which many of these people in Carlisle will find themselves towards the end of this year and the beginning of next. I beg the Minister to look sympathetically at this matter.
Other workers with a grievance are the head office staff in the brewery, who are professional people who know their jobs. One of these staff transferred only recently from London to Carlisle and he is extremely worried about his future

since he has taken on a mortgage in the area. I hope that the Government will not hide behind the usual Front Bench sort of reply, but will try to agree to some words such as these being written into the Bill to help my constituents in their genuine problems

Mr. Michael Cocks: I shall not pursue the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), and certainly I do not agree with his description of the Under-Secretary of State as being a member of the "second team". The hon. and learned Gentleman has shown courage and resilience in our debates on this Bill, and many of us believe that the Home Secretary should be piloting it through Parliament himself. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman grasped at the Immigration Bill like a drowning man clutching a straw as it provided an excuse for getting out of this unpleasant task.
I commend these Clauses as being unexceptional and putting into formal language what we understand to be the Government's intention. This is a human problem, and one of the saddest features of our visit to Carlisle was in talking to people working in the scheme, many of whom have put many years of honest endeavour into building it to what it is today. It was especially distressing to talk to tenants and managers who have living accommodation over the premises which they run. Most of it is beautifully kept, and it was sad to hear them speaking of the dreadful uncertainty hanging over them.
I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say that the spirit of these Clauses is the Government's intention. I am equally sure that he will ask us not to formalise it. However, I suggest that acceptance of the Clauses will lift the uncertainty, and, although negotiations and evaluation may drag on over a period of months, this simple crystallisation of the Government's intention into formal wording will remove a cloud from these people. Nothing destroys happiness and morale more than uncertainty about one's job or one's home. If there is uncertainty about both, a position is created which produces stresses which are extremely hard to bear.
I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to make a concession because he agrees with our intentions and that, for the


sake of the peace of mind of the people involved, he will put them formally into the Bill in these Clauses.

Mr. Garrett: This is a humanitarian problem and, like both my hon. Friends, I feel that one of the advantages that we gained from our visit to Carlisle was a deeper understanding of some of the problems facing those employed in the State scheme, both those in senior management and those who are paid hourly.
I cannot speak for Ross and Cromarty because, as I said in Committee, I am not sure where it is. I have still not had an opportunity to consult a map. However, in Carlisle it is sad to see the disarray that is becoming more and more apparent, especially among managers who have given so much of their time to building up healthy and thriving enterprises. I recall meeting one man who has spent 14 years building up a very successful adjunct to the tourist trade. One hotel that we visited had four luncheon bookings by coach parties from the South of England who were en route to Scotland and the Lake District.

Mr. Ross: And Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Garrett: I have no doubt that they were going there as well. Those employed in the State management scheme are participating actively in promoting tourism, which both sides of the House are desperately trying to encourage, and we have to instil in the heavy hearts of those engaged in the scheme some degree of courage in the shape of a positive statement from the Minister.
Then we have to consider the tenants and managers lower down the rungs. I mean the people who run the not so "posh" hotels and cater for the hourly-rated people at night and in the busy lunchtime trade. They, too, want some assurance about their future conditions of employment. I know that the last Government introduced the redundancy payments scheme and that there are wage-related payments associated with it. But these people want to know where they stand in the new set-up.
Then I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to say a few words about the change-over period. In saying that, I appreciate that I am asking a great deal.

But we have to keep the quality of people who are employed in the scheme and assure them that, whoever takes over, they will be given at least equivalent terms of employment. I have in mind the fact that someone who is a tenant at the moment may find himself working for someone else.
We have also to consider the ordinary people, those who clean the pubs prior to their opening at 11 in the morning, the people on the sales side, the travellers, and those responsible for the quality of the beer. People in a variety of trades are engaged in the industry. They are all in catering, but they are involved in their own little kingdoms trying to maintain efficiency.
I have never apologised for drinking State beer or going into State pubs. Certainly some of those in Newcastle are superior to many private pubs. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the hon. and learned Gentleman that during the transitional period those engaged in the State scheme will have their minds put at rest about their basic continuity of employment. I hope that it will be possible also to assure them that if by chance they are demoted, whoever succeeds them as their managers or employers will guarantee them the same standard of earnings. If we can provide assurances on those lines, we shall succeed in lowering the temperature in the Carlisle, the Gretna and, possibly, the Ross and Cromarty areas.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: We have all made our party political points, and I am sure that many more will be made in the remaining debates on this Bill. However, I hope that we all agree that these Clauses draw attention to what is probably the most humanitarian aspect of the problem. Certainly those of us who went to Carlisle were all greatly impressed by the quality of the staff running the State pubs and hotels, and we were deeply moved by their genuine anxiety about their future. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) will confirm that, but certainly that was my experience in both the brewery and the hotels and pubs.
One incident which is prominent in my mind occurred at the last pub that we visited. It was "The Black Lion" at Durdah, in the constituency of the Leader


of the House. We met the young couple who run the place. They have a young child. We saw their beautiful flat immediately above the premises. Theirs is a highly respectable pub to which anyone could lake his family. Those two young people are desperately anxious to know what safeguards they have under the new dispensation.
I recall that the Under-Secretary of State made certain noises in Committee and gave certain explanations about the Government's intentions towards the civil servants involved in the State scheme. I hope that he will go further tonight and give the workers in Carlisle some of the assurances for which we ask. In that way he will allay their anxieties between now and the sale of these properties to private enterprise.

Mr. Idris Owen: I have been impressed by the sympathy and understanding of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the staff in Carlisle. I visited various of the establishments there and went through the brewery. I was most impressed by the premises which I saw and by the courtesy and enthusiasm of the staff at the brewery. I, too, should be extremely distressed if they were made redundant as a result of the transfer of the brewery and the licensed premises
I discussed this matter with the Board of Trade manager in Castle Street. He assured me that the staff were first-class. I was reassured by that, because the staff will be retained on their merit. It will not be necessary to write into a contract that they must be employed There is no doubt that all the conditions which hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to write into a contract would only serve to inhibit the negotiators in getting the best possible price.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) moved an Amendment in Committee seeking to ensure that
no such property shall be disposed of to any company which has in the years 1967 to 1970, inclusive, subscribed to any political party in any way whatsoever.
That is a pretty onerous condition. The new Clauses and Amendments listed today are also full of onerous conditions and considerations. The more onerous we make conditions the more we tie the

hands of our negotiators, who must be free to strike a good bargain.
I know that my hon. and learned Friend will be as sympathetic and understanding as any hon. Gentlemen opposite in ensuring that the staff are dealt with fairly. I did not get the impression of any degree of despondency from the staff I interviewed. They were quite happy about transference and not unduly disturbed. The only despondency seemed to be that they were of the opinion that the holiday concessions in the State system were more generous than in the private system. However, they conceded that the standard of pay in the private system was higher. Some said, "We shall probably get more money in the private system but we may not get holidays as good as in the State system."
Considerable incentives will be offered to the staff if and when they transfer to private management. There will be incentives to sell. The hon. Member for Fife, West mentioned the problem of the young couple with the baby. They will have nothing to fear. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will make clear beyond any doubt that it will be a matter for consideration by the negotiators.
We would be unwise to write too many conditions into a contract because we might frighten away people who were prepared to pay a generous price. I do not want the State staff in Carlisle to be treated ungenerously. They deserve to be treated generously. I have every faith that they will be treated generously and that my hon. and learned Friend will make it clear to anybody negotiating that that is expected.
Trained and experienced staff are not readily available. Brewery companies have great difficulty in getting trained, experienced, capable, reliable and honest staff for their licensed premises. This problem has bedevilled brewers for many years. They just cannot get trustworthy, reliable and keen people. Therefore, no brewery company will dismiss these trained staff. I am happy to leave it to my hon. and learned Friend to ensure that the acquiring organisations are made well aware of our desires in that respect.
I urge right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite not to press too many conditions to be imposed into the contract. By so doing, they will force down the price. I am sure that they do not want that.

Mr. Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he tell me what he thinks of the wording in the new Clause,
shall so far as is practicable"?
That wording was very carefully chosen. Does he suggest that that is too much of a prohibition to place on anyone seeking to sell property?

Mr. Owen: I do not agree that it should be written into a contract.

Mr. Cant: I had not intended to intervene, because, on balance I feel extremely pessimistic about this matter. I did not go to the brewery or to Carlisle because I had a hangover—not as a result of drinking but from the effects of 'flu.
The Government have never been guilty of making a generous response to any human situation, and I do not expect them to do so now. I thought we would get a non-committal statement from the Minister, which would be slightly platitudinous and full of regrets, and I was prepared to accept it. However, we heard from the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) the authentic voice of Conservatism: "Do not interfere with those who are to make a valuation and determine the price; do not impose any conditions on what should happen to the staff."
The Minister is not the architect of the Bill; he is just the executioner. He need not say anything, because we heard what was said by the hon. Member for Stockport, North. I regret this, but it is not a matter which fills me with massive surprise.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) for his advice, but I propose to ignore it. I shall attempt to answer the debate in my own way.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) in his semi-jocular, semi-serious remarks about me seemed to indicate that I was in the "second eleven" or something of that nature. That is not the situation. I am in a position to bind the Government by what I say and by what Amendments I might choose to accept. It is important to say that at the outset, because I should not like it to be thought that anything said by me at this stage rather than by the Home Secretary was debased or devalued

in the eyes of the people to whom it was addressed.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I was trying to be helpful by boosting the hon. Gentleman so that he might eventually get a transfer to the first team.

Mr. Carlisle: I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that I was not in a position to give any undertaking or to accept any Amendment.
I accept that we are dealing with a human problem. I should like, first, to clear up what can only be a misunderstanding. I accept the genuineness of the hon. Member for Carlisle about the visit of the representative of the Establishments Department of the Home Office to meet the staff association and the trade unions in Carlisle, but I am advised that there was no intention or understanding that there was to be a regular monthly visit. When the representative of the Establishments Department visited Carlisle, earlier this year and spoke to the staff side and to the trade unions he was asked by one of the representatives of the trade unions or of the staff association whether he would come once a month. I am told that his answer was that he would come up as often as necessary, and that may have led to misunderstanding. It may have been assumed that he meant that there would be a monthly meeting.
The representative said that he would go up as often as necessary, but it has not been felt, while the Bill has been going through the House, that anything further has occurred since then to justify another visit. I am told that a visit has been planned for next month, when this gentleman will return to Carlisle to discuss matters with those concerned. If there has been a misunderstanding, and if it is in any way the fault of the Home Office, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Although we do not think it right to tie ourselves down to meetings at fixed intervals, we have agreed that there should be meetings with the staff side as and when necessary.
8.0 p.m.
Perhaps I may deal in reverse order with the matters that have been raised. I start by dealing with new Clause 7, which deals specifically with maintenance staff. I am told that there are about 60 tradesmen on the maintenance staff in the works


department. They are all civil servants. I do not think that I can give an undertaking in the terms asked for, but I can say that there are other Government Departments in the area which have maintenance staffs, and that the Home Secretary will use his best offices to see that these people have the opportunity, if opportunity it be, to transfer to other Government Departments in the area.
The staff are civil servants, and if they are not offered alternative employment within the Civil Service—I repeat "within the Civil Service", because they may take alternative employment outside the Civil Service—and become redundant as a result of the Bill, they will be entitled to compensation under Civil Service regulations, but the Home Secretary will use his best offices to see that where possible they are transferred to other Government Departments.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I am following the Minister's argument, and I am grateful to him for giving way. After the Bill becomes an Act and the Government start to hive off these pubs, what will happen to the people employed there, bearing in mind that they are civil servants? Let us suppose that one of the staff—it does not matter whether he is a member of the head office staff, one of the managers, one of the ancillary workers, or a joiner—is offered other employment and decides to accept it because he is unsure about his future. Will he be granted a golden handshake under the redundancy payments scheme?

Mr. Carlisle: The people employed there will be treated in accordance with the regulations relating to civil servants, but I can go further and say that if someone has an opportunity of taking other employment within the Civil Service before he becomes redundant—because there are regulations about the rights of civil servants to transfer from one job to another—his position will be sympathetically considered. If he becomes redundant from the Civil Service he will be entitled to compensation under the Civil Service regulations, despite the fact that he takes employment which ceases to make him a civil servant; in other words, with a private employer.
I assume that different considerations will arise if a man, having the opportunity to take an attractive job outside

the Civil Service, decides to take it while his present job still exists, because there will then be no question of redundancy. He will move of his own free will. If he makes that decision voluntarily, I do not think he will be entitled to any redundancy payments under the regulations.
Now I come to new Clause 2. I realise that I must bear in mind the stresses to which reference has been made, and that people want to know where they stand in the new set-up. I appreciate that, but I must, nevertheless, advise the House against accepting the Clause. If it is to mean anything, it must be enforceable, and the fact is that it is not. It is limited by the words which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) emphasised,
so far as is practicable".
It is, in many ways, merely legislating for an intention, rather than any effect.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was nothing in the Bill about pensions or compensation. That is true, but there does not have to be. Those who are employed in the State scheme are civil servants, and as such they are covered by other Acts which deal with their pension and compensation rights. It is not necessary in this Measure to detail their rights. They are civil servants, and they qualify for pensions and compensation under other Acts.
The real answer to new Clause 2 is what the right hon. Gentleman suspected, that whereas this provision has been lifted—and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense—from Section 106 of the 1964 Act, the position here is reversed. Section 106 of that Act says that where, under Section 104, the State chooses to acquire licensed premises, either compulsorily or voluntarily, it binds itself to continue generally the employment of those who are working there at that time. As a buyer, one can choose to bind oneself. What is unenforceable is a seller attempting to bind the buyer.
The Home Office hopes that on the transfer of ownership of the premises many of the existing staff will continue in their employment, but one cannot bind oneself by Statute to that. As my hon. Friend said, if one binds oneself to that, one can do so only in such a way as seriously to depress the price of any


premises. A person who was hoping to buy, would, on facing such a condition, say that the price he was prepared to offer was depressed.
I hope that most of those employed will continue to be employed, but I cannot bind the Home Secretary, because any such undertaking would be unenforceable.

Mr. Cant: I was not being excessively critical but simply stating a fact. No doubt anyone in this situation would have done the same. But is there not a serious philosophical implication in what the Under-Secretary said—that the State as a buyer is willing to impose higher costs on itself by making these arrangements than it is prepared to impose as a seller?

Mr. Carlisle: To the degree that it  buying by compulsory purchase, there is nothing morally unreasonable in that proposition. It is a question of enforceability more than anything else. As a buyer, one can bind oneself, but one cannot as a seller in a free market transaction bind the buyer.
The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is that one would have to know more about the present position of tenants or managers. If such a man were a tenant of one of the 40 smaller public houses, he would be given the first opportunity to purchase.

Mr. William Hamilton: They have no money.

Mr. Carlisle: That is a major consideration, but there are mortgages, and insurance companies will arrange money, particularly for a young couple who are running the place well. If it is a managed house, the man is a civil servant, and if he did not remain the manager on change of ownership, he would be a redundant civil servant and likely to be entitled to compensation.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen). I do not believe that there is such a superfluity of trained and experienced staff in the licensed trade that people buying these public houses will not wish to retain the services of many of those who are running them.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary is being a little too cautious. He could have

accepted new Clause 2 without giving much away, particularly in view of his last suggestion, that if the quality of the staff is that good they are all right. If their quality is as good as we say, and in the light of the service which they have given to the State Management Scheme, the Under-Secretary has an obligation to accept an Amendment which would not bind the Secretary of State—there is no suggestion of that in the new Clause—but lay an obligation on him "so far as is practicable." In other words, he would use his good offices to see that they continued in their jobs, and for most of these people it is not just their jobs but their houses as well that are at stake.
I have examined the proposed arrangements for compensation for premature retirement from the Civil Service industrial staff; they are new arrangements because of this problem. Many people who work in the breweries live in the properties of which a list was forwarded to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry). The same is true of the managers of the public houses. They and their wives do a team job, and they merit a certain consideration.
An incoming brewer, small company or individual, may think it commendable of the Secretary of State to have insured this willingness on the part of the staff to help in the transitional period—if they are so willing. The team of manager and his wife is what counts for anyone taking over a public house. I know enough about the business to know the importance of this. So we are not placing such a terrible obligation on the Secretary of State.

Mr. Idris Owen: I am in a dilemma. I have a great deal of sympathy with these representations, but I see practical difficulties. Can we take a classical case, of a large brewery company employing thousands of operatives who are tenants or managers of licensed premises? Let us suppose that it took over the Carlisle State Management Scheme under terms not less favourable for the staff than they already enjoy.
I ascertained in Carlisle that the one distinct advantage which the State operatives enjoy is a fairly long holiday. Can


the right hon. Gentleman imagine the dilemma of a large brewery company in assessing this problem if it knew that it would have in Carlisle staff enjoying four weeks' annual leave and throughout the whole length of Great Britain an entitlement to only two weeks? The tail would be wagging the dog and it would create an awful problem for the negotiators on behalf of the brewery company. It may encourage them to take the view that they must offer a less attractive price for the premises because of these onerous conditions. This is a pertinent point.

Mr. Ross: Assuming that the 170 licensed premises had been bought, it was a very interesting presumption of the hon. Member—

Mr. William Hamilton: Yes, just one brewer.

Mr. Idris Owen: Or two or three.

Mr. Ross: —that this Carlisle tail would wag the dog, bearing in mind that these brewers, according to what we have been told by the Monopolies Commission Report, "Brewery ownership in England and Wales", own 86 per cent. of the public houses.
The new Clause meets the practical difficulty that the hon. Member fears. The words are "so far as is practicable". If these people are as good as he now says they are, despite the reflections that he passed on the purposes of the new Clause, I am sure that he will agree that when balancing the two things the brewery companies would have no difficulty in deciding.

I am concerned that somebody should speak for people, many of whom have given 15, 20 or even 30 years of their lives to State management. I am shocked and disappointed that we should have had such a poor response from the Minister with all this business about "binding". We did not make it a condition of sale. That would have been binding; that would have affected the buyers. We did not do that. We tried to place upon the Minister the same obligation to the people as was accepted by the State when it took over.

We have had a miserable reply from the Minister. I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland should sit in his customary silence, even on a point like this, which affects so many people. It is a great pity that the Minister never went to Carlisle to meet these people. If he had, the first thing that he would have appreciated would have been their quality and their loyalty to the service that has employed them. Many of them are third-generation employees.

The Tory Party will not get much loyalty from its hitherto supporters. I thought that loyalty was something that the Tory Party enjoyed in the industrial world, something that it liked to think was its—something that was appreciated and was duly recompensed, and not merely compensated. The Minister's answer was not good enough. That being so, I ask my hon. Friends to support us in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 157.

Division No. 390.]
AYES
[8.22 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hamling, William


Ashton, Joe
Doig, Peter
Hardy, Peter


Beaney, Alan
Dormand, J. D.
Harper, Joseph


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bidwell, Sydney
Driberg, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Horam, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dunn, James A.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Booth, Albert
Eadie, Alex
Huckfield, Leslie


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Evans, Fred
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hunter, Adam


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ford, Ben
Janner, Greville


Concannon, J. D.
Freeson, Reginald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Davies. G, Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)




Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Gerald
Mendelson, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Kelley, Richard
Millan, Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Kinnock, Neil
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lamond, James
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Latham, Arthur
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Lawson, George
O'Malley, Brian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Orme, Stanley
Tinn, James


Leonard, Dick
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Torney, Tom


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Varley, Eric G.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pendry, Tom
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest G.
Weitzman, David


Loughlin, Charles
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wellbeloved, James


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


McBride, Neil
Rankin, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McCann, John
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Roberts, Rt. Hn. [...] (Caernarvon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woof, Robert


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)



McNamara, J. Kevin
Sandelson, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
James Hamilton and


Marsden, F.
Sillars, James
Mr. John Golding.


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silverman, Julius





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gibson-Watt, David
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Green, Alan
Mudd, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grieve, Percy
Murton, Oscar


Bell, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gummer, Selwyn
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Benyon, W.
Gurden, Harold
Normanton, Tom


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nott, John


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Biggs-Davison, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Haselhurst, Alan
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Boscawen, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Bowden, Andrew
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Peel, John


Bray, Ronald
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holt, Miss Mary
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bryan, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Raison, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Buck, Antony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bullus. Sir Eric
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Campbell Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


Chapman, Sydney




Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald



King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kinsey, J. R.
Simeons, Charles


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert
Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry



Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer



Critchley, Julian
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Crouch, David
Loveridge, John
Stainton, Keith




Stanbrook, Ivor




Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Curran, Charles
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McLaren, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Dean, Paul
McMaster, Stanley
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hemlon, S.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Trafford, Dr. Antnony


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mather, Carol
Waddington, David


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard




Wells John (Maidetone)


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.



Fell, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilkinson, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Norman Fry, Peter
Moate, Roger
Mr. Hector Monro and Mr. Tim Fortescue.



Molyneaux, James



Gardner, Edward
Money, Ernle

New Clause 8

COMPENSATION

In computing any compensation available to employees of state management, the relevant date after which entitlement should start should be the date of publication of this Bill.—[Mr. Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
It is a simple Clause relating to staff and people employed, and relating to compensation. I hope that I will receive a much more sympathetic answer this time. If the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been delegated to do this job, then our hopes rise.
The Clause states:
In computing any compensation available to employees of state management, the relevant date after which entitlement should start should be the date of publication of this Bill ".
The Bill was originally published in February. The point is that these people, since that time, have been in a position of considerable uncertainty. They were eventually told at a certain meeting what their position was with regard to con-pensation if and when they lost their jobs. The House has certain obligations when dealing with these people because they are civil servants who, by decision of the House, may well lose their jobs.
I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) will show the kind of attention to this problem that he has to the others. He is one of the few who have taken a continuing interest in the problems of the people concerned. Since February they have been uncertain as to what will happen to them, what kind of compensation they will receive and whether anyone will make any effort to see that their jobs continue or, if they do not continue there, whether they are to be transferred to another section of the Civil Service and, if they are, what this will mean in respect of removal, the tenancy of the house and so on.
This is where we are in a dilemma about taking the right amount of time to dispose of the properties and get the price. Certain people want the thing done as quickly as possible, because the longer this goes on the longer the un-

certainty remains. When the Under-Secretary said in Committee that the Government expected the whole matter to continue for about another year, that meant about another year of uncertainty.
The Bill has still to complete its stages in the House tomorrow, and will then go to another place, where they have certain things taking up their attention which will continue to do so for some considerable time. But we can take it that it will probably be some time in July before the Bill receives the Royal Assent. That is a fair length of time for people to be left in an uncertain position, knowing that their compensation might be jeopardised if they took any precipitate step, but also knowing that they may let good opportunities of a job slip past them. That would not happen if the date of entitlement to compensation were fixed as the date of publication of the Bill.
This is a simple human problem. I hope that abstruse reasons such as not binding the Government are not advanced. The dilemma arises from what the Government have decided to do and how they have decided to dispose of the assets. They have left themselves little room for manoeuvre. Many of these employees will have had 18 months to two years of uncertainty. In that time, because of the conditions qua compensation and because disposal will start only after the Bill becomes law, their career in State management, which they were entitled to expect would continue for a long time, may well have been destroyed and they may well have lost the possibility of alternative employment.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North said that in the licensed trade a good husband and wife team—manager and manageress—are greatly sought after. Such a team could well desire a move. The move will cost them considerably in removal expenses and new furniture and will cause a complete upset. For the services they have given to the State they are entitled to normal compensation. If they accept a job between the date of publication of the Bill and such time as the premises are disposed of, they will be at a considerable disadvantage. On the other hand, the State can be equally disadvantaged; because who will want to fill a vacancy which may last for only a few months?
This is what the Government have let themselves in for because of the dogmatic decision to act in this way after all these years and sell off these properties. The rights and expectations of the individual must be properly recognised.
It may well be that in my haste in tabling this short Clause I have not selected the right words. If the Government accept the principle, there will be no Division. If they are not satisfied with the wording of the Clause, let them undertake to put it right in another place. If the Government will not accept the principle, I have no alternative but to ask my hon. Friends to support me by speech and by vote.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I support the Clause which has been so ably moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Up to now, we have not been able to extract one concession from the Government which will be of any benefit to employees. The Clause provides the Government with an opportunity to prove that they mean business. [Interruption.] I am sorry that it is necessary for a conference to take place between the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), whose area is affected by the proposal in the Bill. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Dumfries would support the Clause, because some of his constituents will be affected. Indeed, there should be a measure of support on both sides of the House for the Clause. We are dealing here with people, and if the people in his constituency who are employed in the State Management Scheme are not important to him, as they are to me, that will not be a good advertisement for him in Dumfries-shire when he has to give an account of his part in the Government's legislation and in doing his constituents and mine out of a little extra compensation.
If the hon. Gentleman will get up and speak, I will sit down. I realise that he is a Whip, but if he wishes to break the tradition of silence on an issue like this, I have no objections. No doubt his constituents would like to hear from him whether he supports the Government on this matter. Evidently, however, he does not wish to break tradition and, in remain-

ing silent, he is condoning the fact that the Under-Secretary of State will, presumably, reject the new Clause. His constituents will suffer from his acquiescence.
I hope that the new Clause will be accepted because it is vital to people employed in the scheme. I realise that another conference is going on on the Front Bench between the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). If the Under-Secretary of State will listen, I hope that he can give some indication of the number who have already left the employ of the State scheme since the announcement in February. How many vacancies are there? Is there any difficulty in filling the vacancies?
If the Under-Secretary of State claims to be humane—as I believe he is—he will accept the new Clause and will not, I hope, brush it aside again and say that this is just another piece of Labour Party propaganda. We are dealing with people and I want to be sure that, on the demise of the scheme, and if they are not fixed up with other employment, the Government will be prepared to stretch the terms of the Redundancy Payments Act.

Mr. Garrett: I support the new Clause. There is nothing original in the proposal. These sub-committee meetings on the Front Bench opposite are getting monotonous. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), I cannot concentrate on my speech when I am talking to no one.
This is an important new Clause and the Government can establish a good modus operandi in industrial relations by accepting it, especially as they have been castigating the trade unions and some employers for bad industrial relations. Here is their opportunity to set a precedent for good industrial relations. What we seek is already established practice in many industries. For example, large companies like I.C.I. and D.C.L. in the private sector and British Railways and the National Coal Board in the State sector have established their own redundancy schemes, through a system of collective bargaining, which are quite irrespective of the State redundancy scheme. In such schemes, invariably the commencement of redundancy payments or compensation payments for loss of


jobs starts on the very day of announcement of the closure of a factory or plant or certain operations. This has become an established part of collective bargaining. The Government would be just about bringing themselves level in what is already part of the normal system of industrial relations.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Golding: Even in normal times the uncertainty created among these workers by the Government would have justified the acceptance of this new Clause. These are not normal times. We have an unemployment figure of 800,000 and economists, journalists and political commentators estimate that there will be over a million unemployed in the winter. If the Government accept this new Clause they would be saying to the State workers, "You need not hang on to face a worsening labour market, you can leave while there is still some slight glimmer of hope of alternative employment." If the Government deny this to these workers they will be saying, "Wait until the unemployment situation is far worse so that you can leave with your 'loss of office' emoluments."
That is an important issue for the workers. For years these workers, as industrial civil servants, have accepted pay lower than they could have obtained elsewhere because of the security offered in their employment. The Government are taking that security away. The least that they can do is to let these people go with compensation at a time when they can find alternative work and not in the winter when there will be no possibility of them starting anew in another job.

Mr. David Waddington: I was not fortunate enough to sit on the Committee, but I have taken an interest in the Report stage. I have been moved to speak by the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and I hope that some other hon. Member opposite will amplify the point that he has made. If I heard him correctly, he was saying that employees of the State in Carlisle have, over the years, been paid at lower rates than people in comparable employment in other parts of the country.

Mr. Golding: rose—

Mr. Waddington: I will give way in a moment. So that the hon. Member may

follow the whole of my point—if I have misunderstood what he has said, I will gladly take a correction—I thought further that he was saying that they had taken lower basic wages because they had security of employment which was not afforded people employed in other areas.

Mr. Golding: I did not use the word "comparable" in any sense. I was making the point that I have often made as a trade union official in the Post Office, about people in the public sector, particularly those classified as industrial rather than non-industrial civil servants. It has been borne out by a Prices and Incomes Board report that these people have chosen to go into an employment which affords them a high degree of security rather than into different employment in the private sector.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing up that point. It seems to me that the point he was making loses some of its force. If these employees in Carlisle were earning similar wages to those being earned by other people in other parts of the country, it hardly seems a strong point against denationalisation to say that one of the consequences of denationalisation would be that these people who had expected to remain in that employment all their lives are now prevented from doing so.
I cannot understand why Opposition Members are all that gloomy. From my limited knowledge of the liquor trade and having heard something this afternoon of the way in which it has apparently been expanding in recent months and years, I should have thought that anybody who had been employed in one of these State pubs in Carlisle and who had made a good job of it, as, according to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), all of them have, would have had no difficulty in finding a situation elsewhere, that he would find scope for his talents in other towns throughout the land, or in the new pubs which, apparently, are to be built in Carlisle.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is talking about scope, but if all the pubs are bought by one brewer and he decides to close a number and to concentrate, many people will be thrown out of work. We are anxious that any such people


should get a little extra if that is at all possible. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the position in Carlisle is gloomy.

Mr. Waddington: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that comment, because it has taken me on to my next point. There have been many contradictions in the arguments of Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that he feared that one of the consequences of denationalisation would be that many more licences would be granted in Carlisle. If that happens, there will be more scope for employment for the very people for whose future the hon. Member for Carlisle is concerned. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, on the one hand, that one of the consequences of denationalisation will be a free-for-all by the brewers, who will nobble the licensing justices, with the result that many more licences will be granted, and, on the other hand, that all those now employed in State pubs will find themselves suddenly unemployed. There is a plain contradiction there, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite did not see it.

Mr. James Sillars: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) does not understand that there would be a change in the character of the job of someone now employed in a State pub in Carlisle who found himself employed in a private enterprise pub. Anyone who knows the liquor trade—and, like the hon. Gentleman, I do not often drink in pubs, but I know a little about it, as do most people—knows that the conditions of service in the private enterprise trade and in the Carlisle pubs are vastly different. Those in the former are not covered by the same pension schemes or security of employment as those of the latter. Anyone with any knowledge of the private licensing trade knows of the vast turnover in staff year after year, and should lead anyone who knows anything about management to question certain aspects of the private sector.
One or two important documents are floating around. One is the Code of Industrial Relations Practice. I shall not get involved in that. I simply point out that it is not enough for the Government to preach the basic principles on this

piece of paper with the purpose of regulating the conduct of industrial relations and improving human relations. New Clause No. 8 is an acid test of the Government's sincerity in their alleged desire to treat workers properly. I ask him to bear in mind the edict of the Secretary of State for Employment to all employers—and the hon. Gentleman will answer as an employer—that the first regard should be to human relations and the human needs of the people they employ.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I appreciate that the wish of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and of hon. Members who have spoken to the new Clause is to help those who may become redundant as a result of the Bill. I share with them the natural anxiety of the people involved in and affected by the Bill; I am not out of sympathy with them.
I should like to answer the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) about the number of staff who have left the State Management Scheme in recent months and the difficulties which have been experienced in filling the posts. I have not the exact figures. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, there is always in the State management system, as in the liquor trade and hotel trade generally, a fairly high turnover of staff and difficulties in obtaining staff. But, as far as we are aware, the fact of this Bill has not led to an increase in the turnover of staff or to any difficulty in filling vacancies. I apologise for not being able to be more precise.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock wished to be assured that in the interim period between the introduction of the Bill and the sale of the premises in which the people are working, those employed would be able to take up alternative employment without losing their entitlement to redundancy payments and without it affecting their terms of compensation. Despite what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said—and I am sorry that he is not present, although he contributed to the debate only a few minutes ago—about the conditions which he said were developing in other industries, we should be introducing a new principle into the terms of compensation


in the Civil Service if we accepted the new Clause.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock would argue that the redundancy being caused by a decision of the Government and of the House creates special circumstances, but I do not think that the circumstances are all that different from the situation in the Civil Service when posts are wound up or jobs are cut as a result of other decisions. I see no difference of principle. The fact that this measure affects a fairly large number of civil servants at one time is not in itself cause for a breach of a well-established principle in the Civil Service.
9.0 p.m.
I would remind hon. Gentlemen that other cases like this do arise, and they have arisen, for instance, where defence establishments have been closed down. In some of those defence establishments industrial civil servants have been involved. As in this case, they are given the opportunity to transfer within the Civil Service when it is possible to give them transfers; where it is not, then they are paid compensation accordingly.
Therefore, while the right hon. Gentleman may argue that we are making a number of people redundant all at once, I do not feel that this case justifies a breach of a principle established and accepted within the Civil Service. For that reason, while I acknowledge the anxiety, and accept the good motives from which this new Clause is proposed, I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept it.
There are two other particular points which I would like to make. One was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). He was entirely right in what he said when he pointed to some of the inconsistencies in some of the arguments which we have heard from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. From the way in which they have spoken this afternoon and during the weeks in Committee one might think that we were destroying jobs altogether and that there would be no alternative employment in the liquor trade or in the retail trade in the State management districts. Yet, in the same breath, they have catigated us by saying that private enterprise is rushing in to take over the assets. If private enterprise comes in to take over the

assets, that will be creating employment. Therefore, I certainly hope that there will be plenty of alternative employment—or, best of all, continuing employment—for those who have worked in the State management districts. Nevertheless, I feel sympathy with those who feel that they should seek other opportunities as they arise elsewhere.
Finally, I should like to make a point of a more technical nature. I have dealt with the principle of the new Clause, and I should like now to deal with one technical point arising out of it. It is the matter of the assessment of compensation and how it may be related to length of service. The new Clause proposes that it should be assessed from the date of publication of the Bill. That is what the right hon. Gentleman seeks. If someone has remained in the service of a State management district right up to the time when the asset with which he has been working is disposed of, that could be a considerable period after the publication of the Bill, because, despite what was said earlier, and despite what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have alleged, we are going to dispose of the assets in the way we think best, and we express the hope that it may be possible to dispose of them within a year. However, some of these properties, as my hon. and learned Friend argued earlier, could, for one reason or another, take longer than a year to sell. Equally, some people may be working in a State management district right up till the last minute. Purely in terms of service, it might not necessarily, in the extreme case, be a benefit to a person who remains in the service of a district up to the last minute that he should have his compensation assessed from the date of the publication of the Bill.
I do not put that argument forward as a matter of principle. That does not condemn the new Clause. I hope, however, that I have made it clear that both on the principle and in practical terms this new Clause presents difficulties. This being so, I must ask the House not to accept it.

Mr. Ross: I think that one of the worst of all reasons for asking anyone to reject an Amendment or a new Clause is a reason based on technicalities.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I did not.

Mr. Ross: No. The hon. Gentleman just added it and spoke for five minutes on it at the end of his speech, and that is the importance which he places upon it.
The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that every person involved here knows the details of the compensation scheme—I have a copy of it here—and that those people know whether or not by leaving their jobs a week before a certain date they would forfeit a year's compensation under the scheme—but surely, it is a matter for them to decide. The hon. Gentleman is objecting to the principle. He seems to think that this is comparable to the closing down of a defence establishment. A defence establishment is closed down on a particular date and everyone leaves at that time. The closure is usually announced in advance and people know all about it. The position of the people in Carlisle is entirely different. The consequences to the people in the brewery will be entirely different from the consequences to the managers of hotels and public houses. If someone takes over a brewery and closes it down, where will the expert brewery workers be employed? The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the trade Press, or even today's papers, otherwise he would understand how the large breweries work.

Individuals who are employed in licensed premises do not know whether they will be the first or the last to go or, indeed, whether they will go to a place which is not very enticing to a brewery purchaser and so they will linger on. Opportunities for managers of licensed premises are not thick and fast upon the ground. The best licensed premises attract the best people, and the opportunities are rare. To meet the conditions almost of slavery attached to the compensation provisions, these people must hang on until the last minute—or else! If they leave before then, everything goes. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he shared our anxieties—

Mr Ron Lewis: Hypocrisy.

Mr. Ross: I would not say that. I think it is just that there is a sacred rule which must not be broken. But this is an exception. This is unique. The people in Carlisle, over a thousand of them, were given no warning and we are under an obligation to them. I regret that it is left to the Under-Secretary of State to be so cruel—although perhaps not intentionally—and I hope that my hon. Friends will take the new Clause to a Division.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 162.

Division No. 391.]
AYES
[9.8 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ellis, Tom
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Fred
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kelley, Richard


Beaney, Alan
Ford, Ben
Lamond, James


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Freeson, Reginald
Latham, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lawson, George


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ginsburg, David
Leonard, Dick


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loughlin, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamling, William
McBride, Neil


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hardy, Peter
McCann, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hooson, Emlyn
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Horam, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marks, Kenneth


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Marsden, F.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Meacher, Michael


Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mendelson, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce


Driberg, Tom
Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Duffy, A. E. P.
lrvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric


Dunn, James A.
Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Malley, Brian


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Orme, Stanley




Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Sillars, James
Weitzman, David


Pendry, Tom
Silverman, Julius
Wellbeloved, James


Pentland, Norman
Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Perry, Ernest G.
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rankin, John
Taverne, Dick
Woof, Robert


Rees, Melyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)



Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robrtson, John (Paisley)
Tinn, James
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom
Mr. John Golding.


Sandelson, Neville
Varley, Eric G.





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
More, Jasper


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gower, Raymond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Green, Alan
Murton, Oscar


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grieve, Percy
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bell, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Neave, Airey


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Benyon, W.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Normanton, Tom


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John


Biffen, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Onslow, Cranley


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Body, Richard
Haselhurst, Alan
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Boscawen, Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bowden, Andrew
Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Peel, John


Bray, Ronald
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holt, Miss Mary
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bryan, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Raison, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Buck, Antony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, Mark
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chapman, Sydney
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rost, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Kilfedder, James
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Clegg, Walter
Kinsey, J. R.
Simeons, Charles


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spence, John


Critchley, Julian
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Curran, Charles
Loveridge, John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
McLaren, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


Dean, Paul
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McMaster, Stanley
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Emery, Peter
Mather, Carol
Waddington, David


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fell, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)



Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Norman
Moate, Roger
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Fox, Marcus
Molyneaux, James
Mr. Hector Monro.


Fry, Peter
Money, Ernle



Gardner, Edward
Monks, Mrs. Connie

Clause 2

DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY IN ENGLAND HELD BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PURPOSES OF STATE MANAGEMENT

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 2, leave

out from '1964' to 'and' in line 4 and insert 'in accordance with the terms set out in Schedule 1'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 12,


in page 3, line 5, leave out from '1959' to 'and' in line 7 and insert 'in accordance with the terms set out in Schedule 1', and the new Schedule:

New Schedule

PROCEDURE FOR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY

1. The sale of unlicensed premises shall be dealt with by an independent firm of estate agents appointed by the Lord Chancellor and the Valuation Department of the Treasury.

2. Such agents shall be fully qualified chartered surveyors, and will act on the instructions of the Secretary of State.

3. The valuation of unlicensed premises shall be done by the valuation office of the Inland Revenue, with advice from the district valuer and the appropriate local authority or authorities.

4. The sale of the licensed premises shall be carried out by the appointed independent estate agents.

5. The valuation of such premises shall be made by the regional licensed property valuers of the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue.

6. Such valuations will be checked, confirmed or modified by the district valuer.

7. Any house, office or shop shall be offered for sale by private treaty to the sitting tenant, or failing such sale, put up for public auction.

8. The public houses shall be similarly offered for sale to the sitting tenant or manager, or failing such sale, by public auction.

9. The hotels shall be sold individually by public auction after independent valuation and Treasury approval of price.

10. In all cases of public auction, a reserve price shall be fixed, and no premises shall be sold below that price, without Treasury authority.

11. In setting a reserve price full account shall be taken, apart from the value of the business as a going concern, of the site and development value of the property.

Mr. Hamilton: The Minister will be familiar with the purpose of these Amendments. He will be aware that the Bill still contains no proposals providing the machinery for the valuation and disposal of the property. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary dismissed Clauses 2 and 3 in six lines. He said:
Clauses 2 and 3 are the operative Clauses. There is provision to enable the Secretary of State in disposing of premises to 'deem' a licence to be in existence, since technically at present the premises do not have to be licensed.
That is all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the machinery for disposing of the properties. The Bill provided, and still provides, that the Secretary of State

himself shall be responsible for disposing of them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-West (Mr. Callaghan) made some comments to which hon. Gentlemen opposite took great exception, when he said:
Secondly, we take the strongest objection to the proposed method of disposal. We submit that the proposed method of disposal, which is to be left to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary, must be changed in view of the financial payments which the intended beneficiaries of the Bill made to the Conservative Party's election funds. We shall expect changes in the Bill to safeguard the public interest in selling these assets. If they are not made, the Conservative Party, if not the Government, will lay themselves open to charges of corruption. I will return to that and demonstrate what I am saying in due course. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite need have no fear of that.
That speech led to considerable abuse being heaped on my right hon. Friend's shoulders, and later on mine. I can take it as well as anybody, and give it, too.
It is significant that it was not until hear the end of the winding up speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland that, in response to an interjection by my right hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking. He said:
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to obtain an independent valuation to assist us in this operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1971; Vol 815, c. 969, 972, 1073.]
If that intervention had not been made by my right hon. Friend that commitment might never have been entered into. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman questions that. The Secretary of State did not mention that in his speech. That was during the last two or three minutes of it.
In the Committee stage, which took a fair amount of time, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not make it clear, either by inference or by specific pledge, that these provisions which were spelt out in Committee would not be incorporated in the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State said:
I say at once to the right hon. Gentleman"—
he was referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—
that the Home Office and the Government accept entirely the need to leave the selling"—


the selling of the pubs, hotels, and so on—
to people who know something about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1971; c. 387.]
Presumably the Secretaries of State knew nothing about it, but that was the provision in the original Bill. The implication was that the Ministers knew nothing about it, or at least they were suspect.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is being stupid.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman ought to treat the House with more respect. Is he seriously saying that because there is a provision in the Bill that such-and-such should happen at the discretion of the Secretary of State, and it is later said that the Secretary of State will have some assistance in exercising his discretion, it is implied that the Secretary of State knows nothing about his business?

Mr. Hamilton: I am saying that because the Ministers were the leaders of a party which received thousands of pounds from the brewers, they were suspect when they were selling State property to their paymasters, and that because that charge stuck the undertaking was given by the Minister in Committee in the words that I am quoting. He said:
…the Home Office and the Government accept"—
he did not say "now accept"—
entirely the need to leave the selling to people who know something about it …".
The inference to be drawn from that is that the Ministers either did not know, or would be suspect if they sought to sell to their financial backers.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: No. The hon. Gentleman pops in and out of the Chamber like a grasshopper and expects to intervene to let his constituents know that he is here. The Minister said:
…the Home Office and the Government accept entirely the need to leave the selling to people who know something about it, and we accept entirely the need to have an independent valuation of the assets for the purpose of sale.

He then went on to talk about how the Government were going to have independent valuers, independent estate agents, use the Inland Revenue Valuation Office, or the Treasury, or whoever it might be, and he added
that it might take up to a year"—
note the words, "up to a year"—
to complete the disposal.
and he spelled out the machinery in a speech that lasted for half an hour. Later be said:
…I have had to explain to the Committee the Government's intentions …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1971; c. 387–9.]
We all know what has happened to the Government's intentions in the last 12 months, but I shall return to that in a moment.
The new Schedule, Amendment No. 29, seeks to incorporate in the Bill the undertakings given by the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office in the speech to which I have referred. I shall not spell out the details, but there was to be an independent valuation via the valuation officer of the Inland Revenue, the Government were to use district valuers, independent agents outside any Government Department, and so on. The hon. Gentleman the Minister went out of his way to say that, in order to be above suspicion. He told the Committee how the Government would deal with unlicensed premises. Independent estate agents would be used, licensed premises would be sold by joint agents, and there was to be a firm based in London—I do not know why it should be in London; these premises are in Carlisle, in Gretna, in Cromarty—and one in the North of England. Why not one in Scotland? The Minister is muttering. I think that he is a bit under the weather at the moment.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman asks, why not in Scotland? I dealt with how we were going to sell assets in Carlisle. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office later dealt with how we were going to deal with the sale of assets in Scotland. There would be no purpose in appointing Scottish agents to sell English assets in Carlisle.

Mr. Hamilton: One of the significant features of the Committee stage was the


apparent loss of voice by the Junior Minister at the Scottish Office. In the latter part of that speech the Minister said that his hon. Friend would be glad to answer questions about the Scottish position. He went on to say how the premises would be sold, that sitting tenants would be given the first option and that failing that they would go to public auction. He wound up by saying that he had nothing to say on the Scottish position except that it would all be above board. Those are not his exact words, but he was anxious to convey that impression. In col. 389, as I have said, he said that these are at the moment still the Government's intentions. But they are not statutory obligations. When the Statute is being interpreted the court will refer to the law and not to intentions.
9.30 p.m.
We have had experience in the last few weeks of the Prime Minister's intention to reduce prices at a stroke and of one of his Ministers going out of his way to say that the Prime Minister was joking and that the housewife should have known it. I wonder whether the brewers paid for his yacht, whether it should be called "Morning Hangover" instead of "Morning Cloud". It is rather sinister that, although the Government declare their honourable intentions over disposing of these assets, they will not put them into statutory form.

Mr. Waddington: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: No.
I want to refer to one or two what I consider relatively minor differences between the new Schedule and the Government's intentions. Paragraph 1 refers to the sale of unlicensed premises via an independent firm of estate agents appointed by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury's Valuation Department. When the hon. Member made his declaration of intent, he did not refer to the Lord Chancellor and he may wonder why we do.
The answer is fairly simple. The Lord Chancellor is an honourable man, which is a rare character in the Tory Party. He went up to Carlisle and talked about establishing some kind of trust—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Trust Houses.

Mr. Hamilton: Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has an independent view of these matters. He wanted a local interest. He said nothing about handing them over to the breweries, but he was in the upper echelons of the Tory Party and he knew how the funds were pouring into the Tory Party from the brewers. Now, he is a high official of the judiciary, and he should be brought in here.
Paragraph 2 refers to fully qualified chartered surveyors acting on the instructions of the Secretary of State, which again is different from what the hon. Member said. The reason for that is that, if a Minister is involved, he will be answerable to the House and we want the Government to be accountable to the House in these matters.
I will skip over paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the new Schedule, because they are substantially the same as the hon. Member proposed in Committee. We attach a good deal of importance to paragraph 9. In it we provide that the Treasury must approve a price. Paragraph 10 is linked with that; there we refer to the imposition of a reserve price. There was no indication in the Second Reading debate or in Committee that the Government had any intention of putting a reserve price on any or all of these properties. In other words, if the Government are stuck with them—if the Government are getting to the end of their tether and want to get rid of the stuff—they will sell the properties at knock-down prices. The Minister will then say, "It is in the national interest that we should get them off our backs." We think that that is entirely wrong and indefensible.
In paragraph 11 we ask that account be taken of the value of a business as a going concern, apart from the value of the site and the development value of the property. Earlier this afternoon, and in Committee, my right hon. Friend made the point that the most important asset in Carlisle is not so much the brewery or the hotels—or the public houses—but the sites. Most sites are in the centre of the city. In Committee and in the Second Reading debate the point was made that the tourist trade will have an increasing


importance in the development of Carlisle, Cromarty, Gretna and similar areas. These sites will increase in value. They have an enormous potential. I have already referred to the potential of the site of the Central Hotel, in which my hon. Friend and I stayed. We regard it as important that such factors should be taken into account.
The Government ought to show that they are honourable. It is not sufficient for them to say that they are, because we do not believe them. Unless they say, "We will put it in black and white in the Bill", they will compound our suspicions. The conscience of the Government has been shown clearly in the Second Reading debate and in Committee, in dealing with this squalid little Measure.

Mr. Spriggs: Earlier this evening my hon. Friend came near to making a charge of corruption against the Government. Would he care to substantiate that and prove his point?

Mr. Hamilton: It would take me too long to do that. I made the charge in Committee and I repeat it now; this is a corrupt Measure—one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation that has ever appeared in this House. I put that on record in Committee, in a couple of columns, or more. I mentioned every brewer who had made contributions to the Tory Party in 1968, 1969 and 1970. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has put questions to the Government, who have steadily refused to answer them.
When the Labour Government were in office they gave information to the House That information is available only because of the Companies Act, which the Labour Government passed. We would not even know what contributions the brewers had made to the Tory Party unless that Act had been put upon the Statute Book. At that time, I asked Questions in the House and I received Answers from my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade, but the present Government, who said, "We will have honest, open government—different from the last", have consistently refused to tell us how much the brewers are still paying to the Tory Party.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) put down a Question, the Answer was that he should refer to a publication from Transport House, which listed these things, simply because the Minister had not the courage to list them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Hamilton: That is the point I made in the Committee stage, and the Minister knows that very well. If he will now say, "We are not corrupt. We just happen to believe that it is in the interests of the nation that these properties should be given to the brewers, and it is nothing to do with the fact that the brewers gave us hundreds of thousands of pounds to win the last election", we would not believe him but it would be a frank admission of what happened, a statement of the facts. If the Government do not say that, I repeat the charge that this is a squalid, corrupt little Bill which ought not to be occupying the time of the House when we are faced with the problems of inflation, the Common Market and God knows what else.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps I can help him in playing out time on rather a sticky wicket and trying to make this feeble protest last for the two days that they requested. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would help me too. I should like to understand what, precisely, is the charge made.

Mr. Hamilton: Corruption.

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said that the breweries were not now interested in buying the houses and that what they were interested in was getting new licences, and that they had secured guarantees that they would get these licences. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say whether that is the charge he makes or whether he is disagreeing with his right hon. Friend about the breweries not now wanting to buy the houses.

Mr. Hamilton: If I disagree with my right hon. Friend, it would not be for the first time nor the last time. But my right hon. Friend did not say that the brewers were not interested. He said, as I said in Committee, that some of the brewers have said that they were not


interested. They have said that to keep the price down. That is the point. They are interested and we were told in Carlisle that before the election they were all up there casing the joint and finding out exactly how many outlets there were and what the pickings were for the vultures, the Tory Party supporters. The hon. Gentleman talks about being on a sticky wicket. He should read an article in the Guardian only yesterday entitled
Beer traditions have gone for a Burton".
The article mentions the slogans by which the brewers are selling beer, and this is what will happen in Carlisle, despite the independent valuers, the independent estate agents, most of whom are probably Tories anyhow. There is no question about them being independent. On the question of how honourable this exercise this will be, and what we shall be having sold there, the article says
Watney's Red is less bitter and sweeter than Red Barrel. It is a darker colour which leads some people to assume wrongly that it is stronger-bodied and more alcoholic; it has a creamier froth which laces the side of the glass as the beer is drunk.
This is the effect of the legislation that the Government are now spending two days on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—two days of the valuable time of the House. The country is agog with excitement wondering whether its champagne glasses have been emptied in Luxembourg because we are passing the Carlisle Pub Bill and entering the E.E.C. No wonder the Government are losing by-elections and fear Macclesfield. No wonder the Prime Minister did not make any more life peers of Tory Members.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury) rose—

Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that honour. Hon. Gentlemen can go and buy a pub in Carlisle. That is the only honour they will get. They will get it at a give-away price.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: Mr. Carlisle rose—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Carlisle: Of course I am not attempting to prevent any hon. Member from speaking. I merely thought that it would be convenient to the House that I should speak now.
I sat through several weeks of Committee deliberations on the Bill and I know that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) often produces shafts that go home but that from time to time he misses with his cracks. The unfairest attack of all that he has made was his criticism just now when he described my speech of 30 minutes, in answer to an Opposition request that I should spell out in full detail how we propose to sell these assets, as "over-long". That criticism came from an hon. Member who spoke for an hour and a half on an Amendment dealing with the specific gravity of beer, which I am sure he will concede had nothing to do with the Bill. In fact, the hon. Gentleman got into some difficulty with the Chair towards the end of that speech. We expect hyperbole from him—for instance, his repeated accusations that this is a corrupt Bill—but that accusation and his other accusation about time are monstrous.
It is hypocritical to a degree of the hon. Gentleman of all hon. Members to accuse the Government of wasting the time of the House by spending two days on the Bill, because that request came from the Opposition. If the general public is concerned, as it should be, with the major issues facing the country, it should ask itself why the Opposition wish to take up an additional day of the time of the House on issues of this kind.
The hon. Member said that, with certain differences, the intention of the Amendment is to put into statutory form the undertakings I gave in Committee as to the method we would use in the sale of these assets. The hon. Gentleman's proposals are unacceptable, not only because they differ substantially in various degrees from the measures I outlined, but equally because it is unnecessary to give statutory form to a procedure which is a matter of ordinary efficient administration.
It is an extraordinary philosophy advanced by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—it may be a philosophy that he learned as a member of the Labour Government—that unless something is written into statutory form it is not in any way binding on the Government and that a statement made in parliamentary proceedings and recorded in HANSARD as


to the method by which the sale will be carried out is in no way to be relied upon and is in no way an honest statement. This attitude may spring from the right hon. Gentleman's own experience as a member of the Labour Cabinet.
It is not necessary to put into statutory form every statement of intention which is made by this Government. I am satisfied that there is no need to give statutory form to our intentions as expressed about the sale of these assets. To do so would not only be a completely new departure in any form of legislation but would be unsuitable.
I want to show how the proposals of the hon. Member for Fife, West are really politically motivated and not merely a desire to put our proposals into legislative form. First, he proposes that the unlicensed premises
…shall be dealt with by an independent firm of estate agents appointed by the Lord Chancellor".
His explanation is that he has chosen the Lord Chancellor because the Lord Chancellor is an honourable man. That is clearly intended to be a slur on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in suggesting that he is not an honourable man perfectly capable of appointing estate agents for this purpose. There can be no other purpose in the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Lord Chancellor.
Next, the hon. Gentleman says:
Such agents shall be fully qualified chartered surveyors …".
Presumably he is implying in general that we would appoint chartered surveyors who were not fully qualified. Indeed, he implies that there are chartered surveyors who are not fully qualified.
Then the hon. Gentleman comes to the question of valuation. He does not at any stage allow for the agents to be appointed to have the competence to make their own valuations. He suggests that the local authorities are more fitted for the task.
The hon. Gentleman says—and I am taking the major points—that all the premises must first be offered not only to the tenant but alternatively to the manager. We cannot accept that. But we do accept that the hotels will be sold individually by public auction. His suggestion that anything is added by saying

that there should be Treasury approval of the price is ridiculous. I have made it clear that we will sell as advised by the agents whom we shall appoint. They will advise us as to the best and most appropriate means of selling. The hotels will be sold by public auction by reputable agents.
The hon. Gentleman said, "What of the independent estate agents? They will probably vote Tory as well." That is an extraordinary example of his attitude of mind. Apparently, anyone's commercial decisions, judgment and advice must be coloured by the way they vote at any particular election. It may well be that the majority of estate agents, being intelligent and sensible people, vote Conservative.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Utter rogues.

Mr. Carlisle: We now have it said from the Opposition benches that estate agents are utter rogues.

Mr. Lewis: Some of them.

Mr. Carlisle: To suggest that when they are asked for independent advice estate agents will colour it to suit the political views of those who seek it is ridiculous.
I will spell out again the method of sale which we envisage. The hon. Member for Fife, West does not seem to have got it very clear. We will sell the unlicensed premises through independent estate agents, offering them at or near the valuation set upon them by independent estate agents, checked by the district valuer, to the sitting tenants in the first place. For licensed premises, we will appoint two sets of agents—a London firm and a northern firm. I have been asked, "Why a London firm?" There is a good reason. The sale of licensed premises is not the type of work which every estate agent is involved in, and it is important to see that we have firms qualified by experience in this type of work. The hotels will then be sold by public auction.
I said that the 40 smaller public houses would be offered at or near valuation price and that the rest would be sold in accordance with advice. I explained how we would obtain independent agents. The valuation office of the Inland Revenue would write to the President of


the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and ask him to recommend suitable agents to achieve that task. That has been done. We have received a reply from the President of the Royal Institute, and, in accordance with his advice, we have written to those agents whom he recommended.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock criticised the comment that the method of sale was fair, just and above suspicion. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), who has suddenly taken an interest in the latter stages of this Bill, has jumped up from time to time saying "Answer the charge of corruption". There is no charge of corruption. Let me make it clear that it is only in the eyes of bigoted hon. Members opposite that this method of sale could in any way be said to be a corrupt method.

Sir Arthur Irvine: In many ways this Amendment deals with the nub of our objection to the Bill. We propose to divide on this Amendment. This represents our last attempt in the history of the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State being given the power to dispose of property on terms which he, subjectively, considers to be expedient in the public interest.
The process of valuation should be written into the Bill, as should the intention

to accept a particular form of valuation. The close association of the Conservative Party with the brewers' interests is well known. In these circumstances, and because of that, it is uncouth to put no safeguards into the Bill to deal with the valuation of the property of which the Secretary of State is to dispose.

That is our charge. The Conservative Party at other times would have shown a much greater sensitivity on this issue than it has shown tonight, and it is in certain respects an unmistakable mark of its decline. We make the serious charge that the Government have not written in the safeguards which are necessary. That is why, with all the earnestness at my command. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide on this important issue.

Mr. Spriggs: The Under-Secretary charged me with coming into these proceedings at a late stage. I remind him that I attended a number of Committee meetings to acquaint myself with the progress of the Bill. I further remind him that I have been in the Chamber almost all day.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 166.

Division No. 392.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, Adam


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, Tom
Janner, Greville


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, Fred
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Beaney, Alan
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fretcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kaufman, Gerald


Booth, Albert
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kelley, Richard


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Ginsburg, David
Kinnock, Neil


Bradley, Tom
Golding, John
Lamond, James


Buchan, Norman
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Latham, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gourlay, Hairy
Lawson, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Leonard, Dick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Hamling, William
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Conlan, Bernard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Lomas, Kenneth


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hardy, Peter
Loughlin, Charles


Oavies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harper, Joseph
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McBride, Neil


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
McCann, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mackenzie, Gregor


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Horam, John
Maclennan, Robert


Dormand, J. D.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckfield, Leslie
McNamara, J. Kevin


Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Marks, Kenneth


Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Marsden, F.


Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy




Meacher, Michael
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mendelson, John
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Tinn, dames


Millan, Bruce
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Torney, Tom


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ogden, Eric
Sandelson, Neville
Weitzman, David


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wellbeloved, James


O'MaNey, Brian
Sillars, James
Whitlock, William


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.



Pentland, Norman
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Perry, Ernest G.
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Dr. Aran
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mudd, David


Astor, John
Gray, Hamish
Murton, Oscar


Atkins, Humphrey
Green, Alan
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grylls, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gurden, Harold
Normanton, Tom


Benyon, W.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nott, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Biffen, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Body, Richard
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Boscawen, Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Bowden, Andrew
Hayhoe, Barney
Peel, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bray, Ronald
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holt, Miss Mary
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hornby, Richard
Raison, Timothy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Redmond, Robert


Bryan, Paul




Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)



Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Buck, Antony
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, Mark
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chapman, Sydney
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rost, Peter


Churchill, W. S.




Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kilfedder, James
Russell, Sir Ronald



King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Clegg, Walter
Kinsey, J. R.
Simeons, Charles


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sinclair, Sir George


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Critchley, Julian Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence, John



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Curran, Charles
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McCrindle, R. A.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. James
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McMaster, Stanley
Tebbit, Norman


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McNair-Wilson, Michael




du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mather, Carol
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Tugendhat, Christopher


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Fell, Anthony
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Wilkinson, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Moate, Roger
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Molyneaux, James
Woodnutt, Mark


Fowler, Norman
Money, Ernle



Fox, Marcus
Monks, Mrs. Connie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fry, Peter
Monro, Hector
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Gardner, Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper





It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

LICENSING (ABOLITION OF STATE MANAGEMENT) BILL

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order. There is one question which occupied the time of the House for about half an hour at tea-time which some of us think should be mentioned, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the sample of the State pro-

perty delivered to the House for consideration by hon. Members; namely, two barrels of State beer to enable hon. Members taking part in the debate to make a proper assessment of the values of the subject-matter of our discussions. We understand that the barrels have been embargoed by the Chairman of the Catering Committee for some reason and are not on display or available to hon. Members. May we ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make a decision on this matter before we resume the debate tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I am seized of the point. I am not sure whether Standing Orders bear upon it or whether the Speaker has any personal power to impound barrels. I will consider the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

SCHOOLS (TRUANCY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The genesis of this debate in parliamentary terms lies in the answer to a Written Question of mine on 15th June last when I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she would institute an inquiry into the changing types of truancy being experienced in secondary schools. The answer had that simple clarity beloved of some Departments: "No." As this gave no information, not even clarification that there are other means of looking at this matter, and because practising teachers are concerned about it, I sought this Adjournment debate.
Parliamentary Questions have their own origins, and this is germane to the matter. On 1st June this year a resolution was discussed at the National Association of Head Teachers' conference at Cheltenham. It expressed:
Great concern at the high rate of truancy which is a significant factor in juvenile delinquency.
Mr. John Walker, the President of the Bradford Head Teachers' Association, said the problem of truancy was widespread in both urban and rural areas throughout the country, and that truancy was sometimes with the connivance of the parents. Mr. Walter Palmer of Hull, who actually proposed the resolution, said that the rate of truancy had soared to the extent that many authorities now regarded an attendance rate of 85 per cent. as the normal or even a satisfactory level.
Indeed, in the Evening News today the education correspondent of that newspaper says:
Head teachers in London are alarmed by a sharp increase in truancy this year … One South London head teacher said: ' Over the past 18 months attendance figures have dropped from 93 per cent. to 75 per cent. and they are getting worse'. It is difficult for welfare officers—whose job it is to watch truancy—to cope. A London Welfare Office spokesman said: 'There is no doubt truancy is on the increase' …. A London magistrate said community centres were having difficulty with truants who broke in during school hours.

At Eastbourne today, apparently, Alderman Patrick Crotty, who is the Tory leader in my own City of Leeds said:
We have just had a meeting to discuss this alarming trend. We have decided to have a thorough inquiry to find out the facts. Our head teachers have noticed an increase in the number of teenagers taking Friday afternoon off. There is little we can do about that, and it is bound to increase when the school leaving age is raised to 16 in 1972.
I thought the figures—not the ones given today which I have only just seen, but those given at the head teachers' conference—important, because they came from practising teachers, and I have discussed this on Yorkshire Television with Mr. Walker and Mr. Albert Rowe of Hull and with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). It became quite clear that we needed the facts. What did I find? I received from the chief education officer in my own City of Leeds a letter which said:
What is disturbing is the growing number of really difficult problem cases as opposed to casual and thoughtless truancies. This is reflected in the increase in cases where parents have to be brought before the Education Committee or even to the courts. Although, in general, such instances are found amongst the older age groups, there is an equally disturbing trend towards the involvement of younger children. … The fact that there is evidence of deterioration … can, I think, be attributed mainly to changes in attitudes, in society and in the family, which are bound to be reflected in the attitudes of children.
The Leeds Evening Post made its own inquiry and said that there was an increase in parental apathy and in the number of working mothers, the child welfare departments were undermanned and there was inadequate punishment by magistrates. In Bradford, where 4,000 out of 56,000 children are absent from school each day, the article went on to say that of these 4,000 absentees only about 500 are actually playing truant, according to the chief education welfare officer. The comment was made by the deputy director of the same authority that there was often a ringleader who could not care less about authority.
In my own City of Leeds the principal probation and after-care officer said:
Persistent truants are often the victims of a vicious circle. They fall behind their classmates by staying away—so they play truant even more.
Sir Alec Clegg of the West Riding said:
With the raising of the school-leaving age, we shall have to do much more for the slow-learning child if we are going to keep them at school.


He went on to refer to magistrates who often treat this matter much too lightly.
This last point was echoed by Mr. Walker, at Cheltenham, who said:
Reasonably salutary action should be taken by the head, with L.E.A. backing to prevent recurrence.
This question and the question of the school-leaving age were taken up by the Education Welfare Officers National Association which wrote to me on 16th June:
It is a problem which schools cannot tackle alone and their right arm in this field is the education welfare service. Why then has this service never been recognised? Why has there never been any attempt to build up this vital service to schools and, perhaps even more relevant, why is Mrs. Thatcher prepared to stand back and allow this service to disintegrate in the shadow of the new social services departments? I cannot answer these questions, perhaps Mrs. Thatcher can—all I know is that my association is fighting a rearguard action to save our service. We have the backing of the Association of Education Committees, the N.A.H.T., and other teachers' associations, but as yet no backing from the D.E.S.
In answer to a Question about the school-leaving age, the Secretary of State said:
I shall shortly be consulting the local education authorities and the teachers on the guidance to be given on raising the school-leaving age. Guidance on the curriculum is given by the Schools Council.
She went on to say:
I think that far more preparations have been made for the raising of the school-leaving age this time than could possibly have been made on the previous occasion, and I believe that the whole operation will go through fairly smoothly.
On the same day in reply to a question about the minority who cause trouble and who will cause trouble when the school-leaving age goes up, the Minister said:
…but if children are difficult at the age when they would have left school, this is a very good reason for having another go at trying to help them. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th June, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 1224–7.]
But she was in favour of the school-leaving age going up. There is scepticism. Many teachers are not convinced about this. The Minister is convinced, I am convinced, the teachers' organisations are convinced, but what teachers need to be told is what is being done.
As an aside, the method of school reorganisation is extremely important in the context of the age group with which I am concerned. Above all, why not look at the nature of this modern truancy? Is it growing and, if it is, why? The evidence I have given so far from other people with knowledge of this subject shows that it is. If it is, why? Is there a change of type?
I once did some research on education in the 1870s and 1880s. If one looks at the school log books of that time, when children who had not been used to the discipline of schools were being first drawn into the system, one finds that the major problem in the 1880s when compulsory education was introduced, was truancy, and it is mentioned in practically every school log book. I can remember in a mining village that when one attended school regularly one had a banner in one's class and had half a day or half an hour off on the Friday. School attendance in those days obviously was a problem. I am not saying that there is anything new. I am asking whether there is evidence as to a change of type.
Is there a growth of phobic school absence? Is there a situation involving introverted children from good homes staying at home with the connivance of parents who are genuinely concerned? I am told by a psychiatric social worker friend that such people attend weekly visits at clinics for discussions, and this group might account for a growth in the number of primary children who stay at home. This may not count as truancy in the true sense of the term.
Is there any different treatment for the more outgoing child from the deprived home who ends up in the courts with a care order? Are the social welfare officers brought in to help the older child who stays at home to look after the other children in the family when the mother is ill, or when there is death in the family? I gather that some local authorities bring in the home help system to assist such children.
Section 92 of the 1944 Act provides that
Every local education authority shall make to the Minister such reports and returns and to give him such information as he may require for the purpose of the exercise of his functions under this Act.
His function under this Act is to promote the education of people in England and


Wales. My own city of Leeds, according to Mr. Crotty, is to conduct an inquiry into this matter. I understand from the Leeds Evening Post that Bradford also is investigating the situation. Furthermore, the North-West Association of Chief Education Welfare Officers is carrying out an inquiry. Why not the Department of Education and Science?
The Secretary of State this week revealed her concern for what will happen when the school-leaving age is raised. We require facts and more detailed knowledge of what is involved in this growing truancy if the newspaper reports are to be believed, and the extract I quoted from the Yorkshire newspaper is vital. It is not the only factor, but is one part of the story. Undoubtedly there is concern about the type of schooling that is to be provided in this extra school year.
Why was the Minister's answer to my Parliamentary Question a blunt "No"? It was a blunt answer from the blunt end of the educational system. But those at the sharp end, the teachers, the welfare officers and those who have to deal with the matter from day to day will not be satisfied. The purpose of my request for this debate is to ask the Minister what his Department is doing about this matter. Everybody else seems to be concerned about it, and a straight "No" from the Department is not good enough.

10.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): It is a valuable exercise that we should be allowed these few moments in which to talk about a subject that is of enormous importance. I shall do my best to answer as completely as I can the questions which have been so persuasively raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). We are certainly not divided about the importance of this matter, though we might conceivably find that there is a difference in emphasis as to the way in which we should tackle it.
The hon. Gentleman said that we need the facts. It is true that there is a certain weakness—though I believe the strengths are infinitely greater—about our partnership system in that we do not centralise statistical information about the entirety of our educational system. I believe that

the strengths of this are much greater than the weaknesses.
It is true that we at the centre do not send out requests for statistics on every aspect of our education service. I can see in the House a former headmaster who I am sure will confirm that headmasters and headmistresses in our education service feel that they have, if anything, to deal with too many returns rather than too few, and we are asked constantly not to request information of this kind, since its provision would take up a very great deal of time. That is one but only one reason why we do not search out information of this kind.
We all recognise that the causes and the backgrounds of truancy can be so many and varied that some kind of central statistical analysis would be a very difficult matter. That is not to say that, at the centre, we are disinterested. I have before me at the moment one of the standard works on the subject by a distinguished author who, to my pleasure, since writing that book has become one of Her Majesty's Inspectors and is available to my right hon. Friend for advice and guidance. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has benefited from this work, as I have.
The overall impression from the literature and inquiries available is to confirm what the hon. Gentleman said. The patterns of school attendance have probably changed very little in the last 10 years. Such evidence as there is suggests that real truancy accounts for only a very small proportion of absences from school, I put it at about 2 per cent.
As the hon. Gentleman said, like Dr. Joad, it depends what one means by "truancy". I define "truancy" as absence from school on the initiative of the child with or without the knowledge of the parent. I feel that the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point when he says that numerically as great a problem—it could be even a greater one—is that of the children who are kept away from school on the initiative of their parents. This may be one of the newer features in our education service. However truancy is defined, I do not question that it is possible to point to individual areas and even to individual schools where there is an obvious increase of absenteeism of one sort or another outside the general range.
I want to establish at the outset that I take this matter seriously. The fact that it is taking place at all obviously derives from broken homes, unhappy homes, unstable homes, irresponsible parents—of whom there are some, alas—emotional disturbance in the home, and so on, which have a major effect upon the children concerned.
In the nature of our education service, I believe that this points to local action in the light of the circumstances of the area, of the school and of the family. I hope that the greater co-ordination available to local authority social services which come into force under the Local Authority Social Services Act, 1970, will provide a framework within which we can work more effectively. The body responsible for enforcing school attendance remains the local education authority, including in the extreme case the duty of considering whether to prosecute. If the authority considers under the Children and Young Persons Act. 1969, that there is a need for care and control which will not be available unless the court makes an appropriate order, it can apply for an order.
However the local authority organises its social services—I am not entering tonight into the controversial question of how the authority should organise its social services—it is obvious that we need the closest possible co-operation between the schools, the education welfare services and the other relevant local services.
The hon. Gentleman hinged some of his remarks on to the undoubted problems which arise as a result of the raising of the school leaving age. It must be said, and it is understandable that it should be said, that when the upper school age is raised some schools may find that they have an additional problem in the presence of pupils who do not want to stay at school and who therefore may be tempted to stay away. It is obvious that where the present rate of staying on at school beyond the age of 15 is not particularly high, the potential problems may be greater.
I want to make quite clear how very grateful I am to have the hon. Gentleman's assistance. There is no possibility of the postponement of the basic decision to raise the school leaving age. I state simply that I do not think that there is

any action available to Government which does more to give equality of opportunity to young people than this action.
It is possible to exaggerate the difficulties, but the hon. Gentleman was right in saying that there are problems. I want to state five positive approaches at the centre which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find helpful in discussing this very important matter. I do not put them in order of priority.
First, the hon. Gentleman will know that for the age group we are discussing—those who will be brought into compulsory school age very shortly—a period of work experience is often of enormous assistance and a period organised by schools in industrial and other undertakings contributes enormously to meaningful secondary education. As the law stands, there is a real difficulty which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stated publicly that in consultation with her colleagues principally involved she wishes to deal with.
I ask the hon. Gentleman's assistance. One of the principal difficulties is opposition by the T.U.C. I am not making a party point about this. I simply state it and I can understand it. It is possible that the hon. Gentleman could help. I believe it to be mistaken opposition, though I respect it and accept that it is sincere. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends with their contacts could assist, this could genuinely be of very material advantage.
Second, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the chosen instrument for central activity on curriculum development is the Schools Council, because under our system the Secretary of State—quite rightly—does not control the curriculum. At its very first meeting in 1964 the Schools Council decided to give high priority to activity in curriculum development in preparation for raising the school leaving age. That is why much of its work has been directed towards revision of the secondary school curriculum, with the needs of the young school leaver particularly in mind. I hope that this in itself shows the urgency of the matter.
Third, we at the Department have our own modest programme—we are initiators in this matter—of short courses for in-service training of teachers. Regional


courses have also been organised. The hon. Gentleman represents part of the great city of Leeds. There is one organised by the Leeds Institute of Education. Local education authorities, through teacher centres, are helping teachers to prepare themselves for the real problems of the raising of the school leaving age. The B.B.C. has plans for substantial radio and television programmes during 1972 designed as a basis for local discussions and to assist local developments.
Fourth, major building projects to provide accommodation for the extra pupils will be provided in 1970–73. I give the fullest possible credit here to the last Government. A building bulletin which they published gave practical suggestions on the range of buildings which may be appropriate.
Fifth, the hon. Gentleman mentioned a circular which my right hon. Friend intends to issue, giving advice and information about the implications of raising the age. We do not assume the rôle of a centralised collector of statistics. I doubt whether a centralised inquiry based on the Department is the right way of going forward, when so much is based on the

areas. I have sought to put forward five positive points.
I should like to recall some words in the Ministry of Education's annual report in 1948 about the raising of the school leaving age in 1947:
On the whole, the picture is encouraging … the only safe generalisation is that the success or failure of the extra year depended in each school more on the quality of the head and assistant staff than on all the other factors combined. Wherever the teachers showed energy and initiative in providing for the older children, the year was a success, whatever the material obstacles. Where these qualities were lacking, the year was largely wasted and the children themselves were resentful and frustrated.
If I have concentrated on the raising of the school leaving age, it is because it is in this connection that the problems of truancy comes particularly to people's minds. The problems and material obstacles are infinitely less this time owing to the preparations and care of successive Governments.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.